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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, claim 1 recites “the flow wastewater” where it appears applicant intended “the flow of wastewater”.
In line 20, claim 1 recites “flow the treated wastewater” where it appears applicant intended “flow of [[the]]a treated wastewater”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, applicant recites “baffed” where it appears applicant intended “baffled”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, applicant recites “confinement area are configured” where it appears applicant intended “confinement area [[are]]is configured”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, claim 1 recites “the flow wastewater” where it appears applicant intended “the flow of wastewater”.
In line 20, claim 1 recites “flow the treated wastewater” where it appears applicant intended “flow of [[the]]a treated wastewater”.
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.
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 1-22 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 "the treated wastewater" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "[[the]]a treated wastewater".
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the treated wastewater" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "[[the]]a treated wastewater".
Claims 2-13 and 15-22 are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as obvious over Conner (US 2011/0005284).
Per claim 1, Conner discloses a granular activated carbon (GAC) enhanced activated sludge system for removing contaminants from a flow of wastewater and/or landfill leachate (Abstract, The present invention provides a system and method for treating wastewater in which the majority of solids and biological oxygen demand compounds are separated from the wastewater feed using a primary separation process, to produce a solids phase and a water phase. [0116] Granular activated carbon in a carbon-assisted membrane biological reactor performs as well or better than a powdered activated carbon enhanced membrane biological reactor in enhancing the removal of biologically refractory compounds, biologically inhibitory compounds, compounds that are entirely resistant to biological decomposition, and extra-cellular polymeric compounds by allowing for substantial regeneration of the granular activated carbon.), the system comprising: at least one bioreactor (Figure 2, biological reactor 202) including biomass to receive the flow of wastewater and/or landfill leachate (Abstract) and to promote growth of biological flocs (GAC 234 having microorganisms 238 adhered to the GAC form flocs 234; paragraph [0076] The biological reactor 202 includes a distributed mass of adsorbent material 234 having pores 236, and an effective amount of one or more micro-organisms 238, that are both adhered to the adsorbent material and free-floating and separate from the adsorbent material in the mixed liquor, for acting on biologically labile and certain biologically refractory and/or biologically inhibitory compounds in the mixed liquor.;
Figure 2); at least one impregnation subsystem to receive a flow of biomass (return activated sludge line 214; paragraph [0089]) and a
predetermined amount of GAC (adsorbent material such as granular activated carbon; [0089] Adsorbent material such as granular activated carbon, e.g., suitably pre-wetted to form a slurry of adsorbent material, can be added to the wastewater at various points in the system 200, e.g., from a source 229 of adsorbent material.; [0144] In certain preferred embodiments, in order to facilitate settling of the adsorbent material in the adsorbent material settling and liquid separation zone 370, granular activated carbon having relatively high specific gravity levels is employed. For instance, granular activated carbon having a specific gravity greater than 1.10 can be used. In further embodiments, granular activated carbon having a specific gravity greater than 1.40 can be used. Since the flow rate of the mixture containing granular activated carbon is relatively low, and the biological regeneration reactor 302 and membrane operating system 304 are relatively small, the higher energy requirements to maintain the denser adsorbent material in suspension for a period of time sufficient to cause the desired level of biology within the biological regeneration reactor 302 are not a significant factor in the overall energy requirements of operating the system.; the adsorbent material is
introduced at locations 230a-230D; [0089]; Figure 2) and to blend the biomass with the GAC to form GAC biological flocs (GAC 234 having microorganisms 238 adhered to the GAC form flocs 234; [0076] The adsorbent material adsorption sites, including the outer surface of the adsorbent granules or particles, and the wall surfaces of pores 236, initially serve as adsorption sites for the biologically labile, biologically refractory, biologically inhibitory and/or organic and inorganic compounds that are entirely resistant to biological decomposition. In addition, micro-organisms 238 can be adsorbed on the adsorption sites of the adsorbent material.; Figure 2); at least one secondary clarifier coupled to the bioreactor (a clarifier can be provided downstream of the bioreactor 202; [0086] For instance, in certain embodiments, a settling zone, a clarifier, a hydrocyclone separator, a centrifuge, or a combination of these can be provided as a distinct unit operation between biological reactor 202 and membrane operating system 204.; the separation subsystem 222 can be positioned in a separate vessel downstream of the biological reactor 202; [0082] However, in certain embodiments, the separation subsystem 222 can be positioned in a separate vessel downstream of the biological reactor 202.; Figure 2, separation subsystem 222). Conner does not disclose where the activated carbon is a granular activated carbon reactivation waste product, the impregnation system receives the waste product and PFAS in the recited manner and the clarifier separates waste product impregnated with PFAS from wastewater and/or leachate in the recited manner.
Initially the examiner notes that it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Regarding where the activated carbon is a granular activated carbon reactivation waste product and the contaminant adsorbed is PFAS the system removing PFAS, it is submitted that the recitations are process limitations or limitations of intended use that fails impose additional structure on the system of Conner.
It is submitted that the system of Conner, without structural modification, appears to be fully capable of being run with a granular activated carbon (GAC) reactivation waste product as the adsorbent material and PFAS being the material removed/adsorbed, because the claim is only limited by positively recited structural elements. Thus the inclusion of the material worked upon by the structure does not impart structure to the system nor patentability to the claims. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use GAC reactivation waste product as the activated carbon in the apparatus of Conner since it was within the general skill of a worker in the art at the time of the invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. The system of Conner is fully capable of being run with a granular activated carbon (GAC) reactivation waste product as the adsorbent material, adsorbing and removing PFAS from the flow of wastewater and/or landfill leachate, because the claim is only limited by positively recited structural elements. Thus, the inclusion of the material worked upon by the structure does not impart structure nor patentability to the claims. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use GAC reactivation waste product as the activated carbon in the system of Conner since it was within the general skill of a worker in the art at the time of the invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
It is submitted that the at least one impregnation subsystem of Conner (adsorbent material introduction apparatus 229; [0101]; the adsorbent material is introduced at locations 230a-230D; [0089]) is fully capable of outputting a flow of GAC reactivation waste product-impregnated biological flocs to the bioreactor (mixed adsorbent material 230c and biological flocs in return activated sludge line 214; such the bioreactor outputs a flow of GAC reactivation waste product-impregnated biological flocs having the PFAS adsorbed thereto (excess sludge is wasted using waste line 218; [0105]) and wastewater and/or landfill leachate having the PFAS removed (treated water effluent discharged via outlet 212; [0079] and [0090]).
It is submitted that the secondary clarifier (separation subsystem 222) of Conner is fully capable of separating the GAC reactivation waste product-impregnated biological flocs having the PFAS adsorbed thereto from the wastewater and/or landfill leachate having the PFAS removed and produce a flow the treated wastewater and/or landfill leachate having the PFAS removed (the separation subsystem 222 prevents adsorbent material containing flocs from passing into the membrane operating system 204; paragraph [0103] Figure 2, effluent 208), because the claim is only limited by positively recited structural elements. Thus, the inclusion of the material worked upon by the structure does not impart structure to the system nor patentability to the claims.
The at least one impregnation subsystem of Conner (adsorbent material introduction apparatus 229; paragraph [0101]; the adsorbent material is introduced at locations 230a-230D; [0089]) is fully capable of outputting a flow of GAC reactivation waste product-impregnated biological flocs to the bioreactor (mixed adsorbent material 230c and biological flocs in return activated sludge line 214; paragraph such the bioreactor outputs a flow of GAC reactivation waste product-impregnated biological flocs having the PFAS adsorbed thereto (excess sludge is wasted using waste line 218; [0105]) and wastewater and/or landfill leachate having the PFAS removed (treated water effluent discharged via outlet 212; [0079] and [0090]).
Per claim 2, Conner further discloses in which the bioreactor is configured to output a waste flow (waste discharge 216 is used to remove a portion of the adsorbent material, biologically inhibitory compounds, and compounds resistant to biological decomposition; [0080]; Figure 2, waste discharge port 216).
It is submitted that Conner is fully capable of outputting a GAC reactivation waste product-impregnated biological flocs having PFAS adsorbed thereto; because the claim is only limited by positively recited structural elements. Thus, the inclusion of the material worked upon by the structure does not impart structure to the system nor patentability to the claims.
Per claim 3, Conner further discloses in which the waste flow of GAC reactivation waste product-impregnated biological flocs having PFAS adsorbed thereto is set to control a biological population of microorganisms in the bioreactor (waste outlet 218 is connected to the return activated sludge line 214 to divert some or all the return activated sludge to control the concentration of the culture & waste discharge via waste discharge port 216 results in a more stable biomass in the membrane
biological reactor; [0080]). While rejected above, the examiner notes that the limitations of claim 3 appear to be process limitations or limitations of intended use that fail to further structurally limit the system of Conner.
Per claim 4, Conner further discloses in which the waste flow of GAC reactivation waste product-impregnated biological flocs having PFAS adsorbed thereto is used to create a waste product (waste discharge 216 is used to remove a portion of the adsorbent material, biologically inhibitory compounds, and compounds resistant to biological decomposition; [0080]; Figure 2, waste discharge port 216). While rejected above, the examiner notes that the limitations of claim 4 appear to be process limitations or limitations of intended use that fail to further structurally limit the system of Conner.
Per claim 6, Conner further discloses in which the impregnation subsystem includes at least one impregnation confinement area (Figure 2, activated return sludge line 214) and at least one mixer (the suspension system 232 mixes the GAC and the biological microorganisms to for the impregnated flocs; [0106] to [0107]).
Per claim 7, Conner does not disclose in which the impregnation confinement
area includes at least one of: an impregnation tank or a baffled section in the bioreactor.
It is submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least one of: an impregnation tank or a baffled section in the bioreactor, in order to, for example, increase the mixing and impregnation of separate materials.
Per claim 8, Conner does not disclose where at least one impregnation confinement area is sized and configured to augment GAC reactivation waste product impregnation into the biological floes.
It is submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the critical date to size the confinement area for optimal impregnation of the biological flocs, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being a routine matter of design choice. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the confinement area for optimal impregnation of the biological flocs, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Per claim 9, Conner further discloses in which blending intensity in the impregnation confinement area [[are]]is configured to augment GAC reactivation waste product impregnation into the biological flocs, because the claim is only limited by positively recited structural elements. Thus the inclusion of the intended use of the structure does not impart structure to the system nor patentability to the claims.
Per claim 10, Conner further discloses in which the flow of biomass to the impregnation subsystem is from at least one of: the bioreactor or the secondary clarifier (the flow of biomass exits the bioreactor 202 passes through clarifier 222 and gets mixed at GAC injection point 230c indicating the start of the impregnation subsystem; Figure 2).
Per claim 11, Conner further discloses in which the GAC reactivation waste product impregnated biological flocs enhance secondary clarification; because the claim is only limited by positively recited structural elements. Thus the inclusion of the material worked upon by the structure does not impart structure to the system nor patentability to the claims.
Per claim 12, Conner further discloses in which the average size of the GAC reactivation waste product is less than about 600 microns; because the claim is only limited by positively recited structural elements. Thus the inclusion of the material worked upon by the structure does not impart structure to the system nor patentability to the claims.
Per claim 13, Conner further discloses in which the impregnation subsystem blends the biomass with GAC reactivation waste product using mixing energy in the range of about 100 sec-1 to about 5,000 sec-1, because the claim is only limited by positively recited structural elements. Thus the inclusion of the intended use of the structure does not impart structure to the system nor patentability to the claims.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Conner (US 2011/0005284) in view of Mallman et al. (WO2023177657A1).
Per claim 5, Conner does not disclose where the waste product is directed to at least one of: a supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) or a plasma gasification subsystem configured to destroy the waste product including the GAC reactivation waste product impregnated biological flocs and the PFAS adsorbed thereto.
At any rate, Mallman et al., also directed to a granular activated carbon system for removing contaminants from a flow of wastewater and/or landfill leachate (abstract, Systems and methods for treating water containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are disclosed. A bioreactor and a supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) system may be implemented to provide a complete chain of separation and destruction of PFAS to treat contaminated water. Adsorption media, such as activated carbon, may be added to facilitate the removal of PFAS from water. The bioreactor first produces an activated sludge containing the adsorbed PFAS, followed by the SCWO system.), disclose where a waste product of a bioreactor (Abstract, Adsorption media, such as activated carbon, may be added to facilitate the removal of PFAS from water. The bioreactor first produces an activated sludge containing the adsorbed PFAS, followed by the SCWO system.) is directed to a supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) (Abstract) is configured to destroy the waste product including the activated carbon-impregnated biological flocs (the biological floc of the bioreactor will be impregnated with the adsorption media, powder activated carbon; Page 16, lines 24-26) and the PFAS adsorbed thereto (Abstract, Adsorption media, such as activated carbon, may be added to facilitate the removal of PFAS from water. The bioreactor first produces an activated sludge containing the adsorbed PFAS, followed by the SCWO system.) in order to, for example, provide a complete chain of separation and destruction of PFAS to treat contaminated water.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine modify Conner such that it comprises where the waste product is directed to at least one of: a supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) or a plasma gasification subsystem configured to destroy the waste product including the GAC reactivation waste product impregnated biological flocs and the PFAS adsorbed thereto in order to, for example, provide a complete chain of separation and destruction of PFAS to treat contaminated water (Abstract, A bioreactor and a supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) system may be implemented to provide a complete chain of separation and destruction of PFAS to treat contaminated water.; SCWO mineralizes PFAS to CO2 and HF; Page 17, Lines 2-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Per claim 14, Conner (‘284) discloses receiving the flow wastewater and/or landfill leachate and to promote growth of biological flocs in a bioreactor (Title; Abstract); receiving a flow of biomass (return activated sludge line 214; paragraph [0089]) and a predetermined amount of GAC (adsorbent material such as granular activated carbon; paragraph [0089]; the adsorbent material is introduced at locations 230a-230D; paragraph [0089]; Figure 2); blending the biomass with the GAC to form GAC-impregnated biological flocs (GAC 234 having microorganisms 238 adhered to the GAC form flocs 234; paragraph [0076]; Figure 2); outputting a flow of GAC-impregnated biological flocs having contaminants adsorbed thereto and wastewater and/or landfill leachate having the contaminants removed (waste outlet 218 is connected to the return activated sludge line 214 to divert some or all the return activated sludge to control the concentration of the culture & waste discharge via waste discharge port 216 results in a more stable biomass in the membrane biological reactor; paragraph [0080]; waste discharge 216 is used to remove a portion of the adsorbent material, biologically inhibitory compounds, and compounds resistant to biological decomposition; paragraph [0080]; Figure 2, waste discharge port 216); separating the GAC-impregnated biological flocs having the contaminants adsorbed thereto from the wastewater and/or landfill leachate having the contaminants removed (a clarifier can be
provided downstream of the bioreactor 202; paragraph [0086]; the separation subsystem 222 can be positioned in a separate vessel downstream of the biological reactor 202; paragraph [0082]; Figure 2, separation subsystem 222); and producing a flow the treated wastewater and/or landfill leachate having contaminants removed (paragraph [0079]; Figure 2, clean water outlet 212).
Mallman et al. (‘657) discloses receiving the flow wastewater and/or landfill leachate and to promote growth of biological flocs in a bioreactor (page 1, line 17; Figure 2). The biological flocs in the bioreactor adsorb to and remove a majority of the PFAS from the flow of wastewater and/or landfill leachate (contaminated feed water entering the bioreactor 110; page 17, lines Figure 2); outputting a flow of activated carbon -impregnated biological flocs having a PFAS adsorbed thereto (PFAS-Contained sludge; Figure 2) and wastewater and/or landfill leachate having the PFAS removed (Bioreactor + PAC effluent; Figure 2); separating the biological flocs having the PFAS adsorbed thereto from the wastewater and/or landfill leachate having the PFAS removed (PFAS-Contained sludge and Bioreactor + PAC effluent; page 4, line 23; Figure 2) and producing a flow the treated wastewater and/or landfill leachate having the PFAS removed (product water; Figure 2).
Nyhuis (US 2018/0141840) discloses receiving the flow wastewater and/or landfill leachate (Abstract) and to promote growth of biological flocs in a bioreactor (activated sludge bioreactor; Abstract); where the biological flocs in the bioreactor adsorb to and remove contaminants from the flow of wastewater and/or landfill leachate (so as to clean the waste water; Abstract); outputting a flow of biological flocs having contaminant adsorbed thereto and wastewater and/or landfill leachate having
contaminants removed (Statement); separating the biological flocs that have contaminants adsorbed thereto from the wastewater and/or landfill leachate having the contaminant removed (the biological flocs are separated from the cleaned wastewater by sedimentation in the secondary clarification tank 17; paragraph [0054]; Figure 2, secondary settling tank 17; and producing a flow the treated wastewater and/or
landfill leachate having contaminants removed (cleaned water 2; paragraph [0054]).
Conner, Mallman et al. and Nyhuis do not teach or render obvious the method comprising where the activated carbon used is a GAC reactivation waste product relative to the aggregate claim limitations. The references taken solely, or in combination, fail to provide all the required limitations, and modification of any
complementary combination of the references of record would be impermissible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0900-1730.
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.
/FRED PRINCE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights