DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 10-28 are pending.
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 .
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: “an access hole with a first port and a second port”. There is support for multiple access holes or access ports, however there is no support in the originally file disclosure for a single access hole with multiple ports.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10, 11, 13-16, 18-25, and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,981,590 in view of McKinney (US 2006/0254967).
Regarding Claim 10:
The claims of the patent disclose the wastewater aeration system comprising: a wastewater tank (second tank) having a water input and a water output; a first aeration encasing channel (rigid tubular channel) in the tank, the first encasing channel comprising a first flexible aeration tube within it (air line hose), the first encasing channel having a first entrance, the first entrance sized to permit the first flexible aeration tube to pass through the first entrance, the first aeration encasing channel having a nonupright section, the nonupright section sized to receive the first flexible aeration tube (air line hose is encased in the rigid tubular channel); and an air pump (surface air pump) connected to deliver air to the first flexible aeration tube (see claim 1). The air line hose is inserted and removed therefore it is configured to move within the nonupright section.
The claims do not teach the first encasing channel having an upright section and a second aeration encasing channel in the tank, the second encasing channel comprising a second flexible aeration tube within it, the second encasing channel having a second entrance, the second entrance sized to permit the second flexible aeration tube to pass through the second entrance, the second aeration encasing channel having an upright section and a nonupright section, the nonupright section sized to receive the second flexible aeration tube, wherein the first flexible aeration tube is configured to move within the nonupright section of the first flexible aeration tube (first aeration encasing channel)
McKinney teaches a first aeration encasing channel (ridged conduit 90) comprising an upright section and a nonupright section (see para. 0019, fig. 2), wherein the first flexible aeration tube is configured to move within the nonupright section of ridged conduit (first aeration encasing channel). The flexible line is within the ridged conduit therefore it has moved within the upright section and nonupright section.
The claims of the patent and McKinney are analogous inventions in the art of septic systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the upright section of McKinney to the ridged tubular channel of the claims of the patent because it provides a passage for the flexible aeration tube to the nonupright section and because it is the simple addition of a known structural feature to a known deice, obviously resulting in a passage for the air tube, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add a second aeration encasing channel in the tank, the second encasing channel comprising a second flexible aeration tube within it, the second encasing channel having a second entrance, the second entrance sized to permit the second flexible aeration tube to pass through the second entrance, the second aeration encasing channel having an upright section and a nonupright section, the nonupright section sized to receive the second flexible aeration tube to the aeration system of the claims of the patent because it is a mere duplication of parts (duplication of the first aeration channel and first flexible aeration tube), obviously resulting in an additional aeration location with an expectation of success. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 11:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the system of claim 10 wherein the tank has multiple compartments (plurality of adjacent chamber), the compartments fluidly connected in sequence with each other, the compartments fluidly connected with one or more fluid conduits between them (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 13:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the system of claim 10 wherein the tank comprises concrete, the tank comprises a top and wherein the tank is fully positioned underground (see claim 7).
Regarding Claim 14:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the system of claim 10 wherein the first aeration encasing channel has an access port at a perimeter surface of the wastewater tank and the second aeration encasing channel has an access port at a perimeter surface of the wastewater tank (two or more access ports) (see Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 15:
The claims of the patent disclose the wastewater treatment system comprising: a first settlement treatment tank (septic tank), the settlement treatment tank having a first wastewater input and a first wastewater output; and a second tank, the second tank coupled to receive water from the first wastewater output, the second tank comprising a second aeration chamber (see claim 1), and a third denitrification chamber (see claim 2), the second aeration chamber comprising a push-pull tube (ridged tubular channel), comprising a diffusing tube (portion near the floor region), an aeration tube positioned within the push-pull tube, the aeration tube sized for movement within the push-pull tube (inserting and removing) (see claim 1); wherein the second tank further comprises a first access port, the first access port providing access to the push-pull tube and the aeration tube from outside of the second tank one of the two or more access ports) (see claim 1).
The claims do not explicitly teach the second tank comprising a first chamber or the push-pull tube comprising a curved portion.
McKinney teaches a second tank comprising a first chamber (pretreatment chamber) (see para. 0014), and aeration chamber (aerobic treatment chamber 30) and a third chamber (third compartment) (see para. 0014-0015). McKinney further teaches a push-pull tube (ridged conduit 90) (see para. 0019) comprising a curved portion (see fig. 2).
The claims of the patent and McKinney are analogous inventions in the art of septic systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the curved portion of McKinney to the ridged tubular channel (push pull tube) of the claims of the patent because it provides a passage for the flexible aeration tube to the diffusing section and because it is the simple addition of a known structural feature to a known deice, obviously resulting in a passage for the air tube, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have further been obvious to add the pretreatment chamber of McKinney to eh plurality of chambers of the claim of the patent because it provides a location for solids to settle out (see McKinney para. 0005) and because it is the simple addition of a known chamber to a known tank, obviously resulting in more solids removal with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Additionally the claims of the patent to not limit the number of adjacent chamber, therefore they are open to the inclusion of a first chamber.
Regarding Claim 16:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the wastewater treatment system of claim 15 wherein the second tank comprises concrete, has a top, and a second access port, the first access port and the second access port (two or more access ports) providing access to the push-pull tube and the aeration tube from outside of the second tank (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 18:
The claims of the patent disclose the wastewater treatment system of claim 15.
The claims of silent as to water travels under gravity flow from the first chamber, to the second aeration chamber, and to the third denitrification chamber.
McKinney further teaches that water travels under gravity flow between the chambers (open communication) (see para. 0007).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the unspecified flow means of the claims of the patent with gravity flow, as disclosed by McKinney, because it is the simple substitution of one communications means for another known communication means, obviously resulting in gravity flow between the tanks, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 19:
The claims of the patent, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 16 wherein the first access port is above ground and the second access port is above ground (see claim 1, section f).
Regarding Claim 20:
The claims of the patent, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 15 wherein the push-pull tube comprises a horizontal portion and an upright portion, the horizontal portion connected to the diffusing tube (see McKinney, fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 21:
The claims of the patent, as modified teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 15 wherein the diffusing tube (portion in floor region) is positioned in a section of the push-pull tube (see McKinney, fig. 2, Patent Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 22:
The claims of the patent, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 15 wherein the diffusing tube is fluidly connected to the aeration tube (see McKinney, fig. 2, Patent Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 23:
The claims of the patent disclose the wastewater aeration system comprising: a wastewater tank (second tank) having a water input and a water output (inherent as water flows from a septic tank to the wastewater tank then to an leach field); a first aeration encasing channel (rigid tubular channel) in the tank, the first encasing channel comprising a first flexible aeration tube (air line hose) within it, the first encasing channel having a first entrance, the first entrance sized to permit the first flexible aeration tube to pass through the first entrance, the first aeration encasing channel having a nonupright section (portion along the floor region), the nonupright section sized to receive the first flexible aeration tube (can be inserted and removed); and an air pump connected to deliver air to the first flexible aeration tube, wherein the first flexible aeration tube is configured to move within the nonupright section of the first aeration casing (inserted and removed), wherein the first aeration encasing channel comprises a diffusing tube (channel near a floor region) (see claim 1).
The claims do not disclose the first aeration encasing channel having an upright section.
McKinney teaches a first aeration encasing channel (ridged conduit 90) comprising an upright section and a nonupright section (see para. 0019, fig. 2), wherein the first flexible aeration tube is configured to move within the nonupright section of ridged conduit (first aeration encasing channel). The flexible line is within the ridged conduit therefore it has moved within the upright section and nonupright section.
The claims of the patent and McKinney are analogous inventions in the art of septic systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the upright section of McKinney to the ridged tubular channel of the claims of the patent because it provides a passage for the flexible aeration tube to the nonupright section and because it is the simple addition of a known structural feature to a known deice, obviously resulting in a passage for the air tube, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 24:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the wastewater aeration system of claim 23 wherein the wastewater tank has an internal bottom surface and wherein the first flexible aeration tube is positioned along the internal bottom surface (floor region) (see Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 25:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the wastewater aeration system of claim 23 wherein the first flexible aeration tube has a distal end with an exit opening (permeable section) (see Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 27:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the wastewater aeration system of claim 23 wherein the first aeration encasing channel is within an aeration chamber (see Claim 1) and wherein the aeration chamber is in fluid communication with a dentification chamber (see Claim 2).
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claims 10 and 23: The claims refer to an “aeration encasing channel” and “an upright section and a nonupright section” These terms are not used in the specification. The upright section is interpreted as being equivalent to the upright portion of the access area 40 and the nonupright portion is interpreted as being equivalent to the curved coupling 42 (see para. 0097 and figure 2A of published specification). The aeration encasing channel is interpreted as the combination of at least the access area and the curved coupling. Therefor the figures are interpreted as including this claimed subject matter.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an access hole with a first port and a second port” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 10-14 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.
Regarding Claim 10:
The claim states “wherein the first flexible aeration tube is configured to move within the upright section and the nonupright section of the first flexible aeration tube”. It is not clear how the aeration tube can move within the aeration tube. Further there is no antecedent basis for “the nonupright section of the first flexible aeration tube”. For the purposes of examination this limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the first flexible aeration tube is configured to move within the upright section and the nonupright section of the first aeration encasing channel”.
Claims 11-14 are indefitne as they depend from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 23-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKinney (US 2006/0254967).
Regarding Claim 23:
McKinney teaches the wastewater aeration system comprising: a wastewater tank (tank 10) (see para. 0014) having a water input (pipe 48) and a water output (conduit 70) (see para. 0017,0020); a first aeration encasing channel (ridged conduit 90) in the tank, the first encasing channel comprising a first flexible aeration tube (flexible line 94) within it (see para. 0019), the first encasing channel having a first entrance, the first entrance sized to permit the first flexible aeration tube to pass through the first entrance, the first aeration encasing channel having an upright section and a nonupright section, the nonupright section sized to receive the first flexible aeration tube (flexible aeration tube is within the ridged conduit, therefore it is sized to receive it) (see para. 0019, fig. 2, annotated above); and an air pump (compressor) connected to deliver air to the first flexible aeration tube (see para. 0019), wherein the first flexible aeration tube is configured to move within the upright section and the nonupright section of the first aeration casing (the flexible line is within the upright and nonupright sections, therefore it has moved through them and is inherently configured to move through them), wherein the first aeration encasing channel comprises a diffusing tube (diffuser 92).
Regarding Claim 24:
McKinney teaches the wastewater aeration system of claim 23 wherein the wastewater tank has an internal bottom surface (bottom wall 22) (see para, 0014) and wherein the first flexible aeration tube is positioned along the internal bottom surface (the aeration tube extends to the diffuser which is along the bottom surface) (see fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 25:
McKinney teaches the wastewater aeration system of claim 23 wherein the first flexible aeration tube has a distal end with an exit opening (the aeration line connects the diffuser a the distal end, as air is fed to the diffuser there is inherently an opening) (see para. 0019, fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 27:
McKinney teaches the wastewater aeration system of claim 23 wherein the first aeration encasing channel is within an aeration chamber (compartment 30) and wherein the aeration chamber is in fluid communication with a dentification chamber (clarifier chamber 78) (see para. 0020, fig. 2).
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.
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) 10, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinney (US 2006/0254967) in view of McKinney (US 2011/0186491, hereafter referred to as ‘491).
Regarding Claim 10:
McKinney teaches the wastewater aeration system comprising: a wastewater tank (tank 10) (see para. 0012) having a water input (inlet into compartment 26) (see para. 0017) and a water output (conduit 70) (see para. 0020); a first aeration encasing channel (ridged conduit 90) in the tank, the first encasing channel comprising a first flexible aeration tube (flexible aeration line 92) within it, the first encasing channel having a first entrance, the first entrance sized to permit the first flexible aeration tube to pass through the first entrance, the first aeration encasing channel having an upright section and a nonupright section (see para. 0019, fig. 2, annotated below), the nonupright section sized to receive the first flexible aeration tube (see para. 0019, fig. 2); and an air pump (compressor) connected to deliver air to the first flexible aeration tube (see para. 0019), wherein the first flexible aeration tube is configured to move within the upright section and the nonupright section of the first flexible aeration tube (first aeration encasing channel/ ridged conduit) The flexible line is within the ridged conduit therefore it is inherently configured to move through the conduit because it has moved through the conduit.
McKinney does not teach a second aeration encasing channel in the tank, the second encasing channel comprising a second flexible aeration tube within it, the second encasing channel having a second entrance, the second entrance sized to permit the second flexible aeration tube to pass through the second entrance, the second aeration encasing channel having an upright section and a nonupright section, the nonupright section sized to receive the second flexible aeration tube.
‘491 teaches a wastewater aeration system comprising a first and second aeration line (see para. 0047) within a tank (see fig. 3).
McKinney and ‘491 are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add a second aeration encasing channel and second flexible aeration tube to the system of McKinney because it is a mere duplication of parts (duplication of the first aeration encasing channel and firs flexible aeration tube), obviously resulting in additional aeration provided, with an expectation of success. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). And because it is known within the art that multiple aeration lines can be provided within a single wastewater treatment tank (see ‘491 para. 0047)
PNG
media_image1.png
793
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11:
McKinney, as modified, teaches the system of claim 10 wherein the tank has multiple compartments (compartments 26, 30 and 32) (see McKinney para. 0015), the compartments fluidly connected in sequence with each other, the compartments fluidly connected with one or more fluid conduits between them (pipes 62 and 84) (see McKinney para. 0020).
Regarding Claim 13:
McKinney, as modified, teaches the system of claim 10 wherein the tank comprises concrete (see para. 0023), the tank comprises a top (see fig. 2) and wherein the tank is fully positioned underground (in an excavation site) (see McKinney para. 0022).
Regarding Claim 14:
McKinney, as modified, teaches the system of claim 10 wherein the first aeration encasing channel has an access port (manway 40) at a perimeter surface of the wastewater tank and the second aeration encasing channel has an access port (manway 44) at a perimeter surface of the wastewater tank (see McKinney para. 0016).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinney (US 2006/0254967) in view of McKinney (US 2011/0186491, hereafter referred to as ‘491) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Streets et al (WO 2014/172791).
Regarding Claim 12:
McKinney, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11 , wherein two or more of the multiple compartments have an access hole (manways 40 and 44) (see McKinney para. 0016).
McKinney does not teach an access hole with a first port and a second port, the first port being larger than the second port.
Streets teaches a wastewater aeration system wherein two or more of multiple compartments have an access hole (ports 56 and 58) (see pg. 18, lines 11-21) with a first port (port for whole cover) and a second port (port for aeration tube), the first port being larger than the second port (see fig. 6, annotated below).
McKinney and Streets are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the flexible aeration line of McKinney through a second port in the access hole of McKinney, as disclosed by Streets, because it is a simple rearrangement of parts (moving the entry of the air line from an unspecified location to the manhole cover), obviously resulting in access to the inside of the tank, with an expectation of success. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
PNG
media_image2.png
592
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15, 16, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinney (US 2006/0254967) in view of Holt (US 2008/0185335).
Regarding Claim 15:
McKinney teaches the wastewater treatment system comprising: and a second tank (tank 10) (see para. 0012, fig. 2), the second tank coupled to receive water (has an inlet) (see para. 0017), the second tank comprising a first chamber (compartment 26), a second aeration chamber (compartment 30 for aerobic treatment) (see para. 0014), and a third denitrification chamber (clarifier chamber 78) (see para. 020), the second aeration chamber comprising a push-pull tube (ridged conduit) , the push-pull tube comprising a curved portion (see para. 0019, fig. 2 annotated above) and a diffusing tube (diffuser 92) (see para. 0019), an aeration tube (flexible line 94)positioned within the push-pull tube, the aeration tube sized for movement within the push-pull tube (it is within it therefore it is sized for movement) (see para. 0019); wherein the second tank further comprises a first access port (manway 44), the first access port providing access to the push-pull tube and the aeration tube from outside of the second tank (see fig. 2, para. 0016). Manway 44 is above the push-pull tube and aeration tube, therefore it provides access.
McKinney does not teach a first settlement treatment tank, the settlement treatment tank having a first wastewater input and a first wastewater output.
Holt teaches first settlement treatment tank (septic tank 14), the settlement treatment tank having a first wastewater input (pipe 12) and a first wastewater output connected to a second tank (second tank 18) (see para. 0029) including an aeration chamber (air stone is provided) (see para. 0036).
McKinney and Holt are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the first tank of Holt connected to the second tank of McKinney because it is the simple addition of a known treatment tank to a known treatment system, obviously resulting in a source of wastewater for the second tank of McKinney to treat, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 16:
McKinney, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 15 wherein the second tank comprises concrete (see para. 0023), has a top, and a second access port (manway 36), the first access port and the second access port providing access to the push-pull tube and the aeration tube from outside of the second tank (see para. 0016). The access ports provide access to the inside of the tank, therefore they provide access to the push-pull tube and aeration tube.
Regarding Claim 18:
McKinney, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 15 wherein water travels under gravity flow (open communication) from the first chamber, to the second aeration chamber, and to the third denitrification chamber (see para. 0006).
Regarding Claim 19:
McKinney, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 16 wherein the first access port is above ground and the second access port is above ground (have manways which extend upward) (see para. 0016).
Regarding Claim 20:
McKinney, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 15 wherein the push-pull tube comprises a horizontal portion and an upright portion, the horizontal portion connected to the diffusing tube (see McKinney, fig. 2 annotated above).
Regarding Claim 21:
McKinney, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 15 wherein the diffusing tube is positioned in a section of the push-pull tube (see McKinney, fig. 2 annotated above).
Regarding Claim 22:
McKinney, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 15 wherein the diffusing tube is fluidly connected to the aeration tube (see McKinney, fig,. above, para. 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 26 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 17, 26 and 28 contain limitations that would not have been obvious in view of the closest prior art, McKinney, Holt, or ‘941. Claim 17 requires “a first cord…and a second cord… coupled to the aeration tube, claim 26 requires a “cord secured to the first flexible aeration tube” and claim 28 requires a “line coupled to the first flexible aeration tube”. Although cords connected to aeration tubes are known in the art, see for example Goetz et al (USPN 5,160,460) which teaches traction rope 48 connected to the end of a aeration hose (see col. 4 lines 7-15, fig. 1) there is no motivation to add the cord of Goetz to the aeration line of McKinney because the aeration line of McKinney ends at a diffuser and substantial reconfiguration of the device would be needed to provide a location to access the cord without any known benefit in the prior art for providing a cord couple to the aeration tube.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 12/16/2025