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 .
StatusClaims(s) 1-4, is/are filed on 6/11/2026 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG (CN 106277678 A) in view of TAO (CN 102733349 A) and SHIMIZU (JP H10273094 A).
Regarding claim 1, HUANG discloses an on-water mobile in-situ dewatering treatment process for bottom sediment (HUANG [abs]: the system "can reduce and stabilize the volume of riverbed sediment" and "requires no fixed site"), comprising:
(S1) sludge excavation: excavating sludge from a lake and transporting the sludge to a detention pond— dredging sediment and conveying it to a detention basin. HUANG [0034]: "the bottom mud sucked in by the mud pump on the cutter suction dredger 1 is transported through the bottom mud conveying pipe to the garbage sorter 2 and sand separator 3," after which "the mud and water flow into the sludge conditioning and solidification storage tank 4." The conditioning and solidification storage tank (4) corresponds to the claimed detention pond.
(S2) in-situ detention: filtering the sludge in the detention pond to obtain filtered sludge — HUANG [0034]: large particles of garbage and sand are "intercepted and separated from the mud" by the garbage sorter (2) and sand and gravel separator (3), the detained mud residing in tank (4), yielding filtered sludge.
(S3) dewatering: transporting the filtered sludge to a dewatering workshop and performing deep dewatering on the filtered sludge in the dewatering workshop to obtain mud blocks and wastewater; and transporting the wastewater to a wastewater treatment device for treatment — HUANG [0036]: the screw press dewatering machine (6) reduces the moisture content "to 80%," producing a dewatered sludge cake sent to the dry sludge storage tank (7); HUANG [0038]: the pressed-out "filtrate filtered by the screw press dewatering machine 6 is transported to the micro-magnetic flocculation reactor 10," i.e., the wastewater is conveyed to a wastewater treatment device (10, 11, 12).
Claim 1 differs from HUANG in that: (a) the method is applied to large-scale desilting of a lake; and (b) step S4 requires using the dewatered mud blocks to build an island near a dredging platform in the lake.
However, HUANG's channel/river desilting scenario is readily transferable to large-scale lake desilting by a person skilled in the art, as SHIMIZU [0029] confirms that such vessel-based sludge treatment "may also treat river sludge or lake sludge." It would have been obvious to a skilled person at the time of the filing date to expanded HUANG’s technique into similar territories as suggested by SHIMIZU. As amounts nothing more than using a known technique in a known field and achieving a predictable result of filtration.
As to feature (b), TAO discloses, in the same field of lake dredging, stacking the dewatered/solidified dredged sludge into an in-lake island adjacent to the dredging operation. TAO [0028]: "the sludge is mixed with 6% sludge dewatering and solidification agent … and piled within the enclosure of the filter layer; the dewatered and solidified sludge from the lake island is used to raise the elevation of the surrounding dikes," and "the island in the center of the lake will be built while dredging and clearing the silt."
SHIMIZU further teaches performing filtration and the full sludge-treatment sequence on board (SHIMIZU [0023]: "the sludge 11 is filtered by the filter device 2"; SHIMIZU [0019]: dewatering/drying by device (8)), consistent with the claimed dredging-platform arrangement. It would have been obvious to combine TAO and SHIMIZU with HUANG to apply the process to a lake and to dispose of the mud cake by building an in-lake island near the platform, to consolidate operations, and provides an efficient on-site treatment and elimination of off-site disposal.
Regarding claim 2, HUANG teaches in step S1, the sludge is transported to the detention pond after being sucked by a pipeline or a dredging ship. HUANG [0034]: "the bottom mud sucked in by the mud pump on the cutter suction dredger 1 is transported through the bottom mud conveying pipe" into the conditioning and solidification storage tank (4) — the cutter suction dredger (1) corresponding to the dredging ship and the conveying pipe to the pipeline.
Regarding claim 3, HUANG as modified teaches after filtering, one or more of a dewatering agent and a solidifying agent is added to the filtered sludge. HUANG [0036] discloses the solidifying agent dosing device (9), which "adds the solidifying agent to the front end of the conditioning and solidification storage tank 4," together with the PAM automatic dosing device (15) that adds a dewatering agent at the screw press dewatering machine (6). TAO [0034] independently discloses the sludge "dewatering and solidification agent" composition ("28% cement, 10% gypsum, 11% lime, 35% slag, 8% sodium sulfate and 8% alum"). It would have been obvious to add such a dewatering/solidifying agent to the conditioned sludge in HUANG, as taught by HUANG itself and by TAO. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing date to employ such agents after filtration, as both references demonstrate that chemical addition improves dewatering performance and produces a more stable mud block suitable for further handling or reuse, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, HUANG as modified additionally recites that the wastewater is treated by mechanical flocculation sedimentation, ultra-magnetic separation, and coagulation sedimentation to obtain treated water, which is then discharged into the lake. HUANG [0038] discloses the corresponding wastewater treatment train: magnetic seeds are dosed and "coagulant PAC and flocculant PAM are added through the dosing devices 13 and 14, respectively," reacting in the micro-magnetic flocculation reactor (10) to form magnetic micro-flocs (coagulation and flocculation); the wastewater then enters the super magnetic separator (11), where "the wastewater first passes through the magnetic drum to separate the strongly magnetic suspended matter, and then passes through the magnetic disk to separate the remaining … thus purifying the wastewater" (ultra-magnetic separation). HUANG [0038] further discloses that "the purified wastewater is discharged back into the original river channel or reused," and TAO [0033] confirms discharge into the lake: "the clear water through the filter layer (13) is discharged back into the lake."
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached on 571-271-0579. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights