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 Status
Claims 1-12, 14-20 and 22-25 are rejected.
Claims 13, 21 and 26 are objected.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9: “a FOG removal system” in line 1 should be replaced with --a fat, oil and grease (FOG) removal system--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12, 14-20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deju et al. (US 11,371,234) [hereinafter Deju] in view of Brown et al. (US 6,960,304) [hereinafter Brown].
The applied reference Deju has a common assignee and joint inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
With respect to claim 1, Deju discloses a grit removal unit 20, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a grit removal chamber 24 defined by a bottom surface 30 and a vertical wall 26 extending up from said bottom surface 30, as shown in Fig. 1, said grit removal chamber 24 having a substantially central vertical axis, as shown in Fig. 1; a grit storage chamber 34 disposed below said grit removal chamber 24, as shown in Fig. 1, and at least one opening 36 through said grit removal chamber bottom surface 30 through which grit from said grit removal chamber 24 may pass into said grit storage chamber 34, as shown in Fig. 1; at least one layer plate 40a-c in said grit removal chamber 24, as shown in Fig. 1, said layer plate 40a-c being an inverted truncated cone annular around said central vertical axis, as shown in Fig. 1, said at least one layer plate 40a-c being spaced from the grit removal chamber vertical wall 26 to allow fluid flow between the at least one layer plate 40a-c and the grit removal chamber vertical wall 26, as shown in Fig. 1; a plurality of lamella plates 50 in said grit removal chamber 24 around said central vertical axis and above said at least one layer plate 40a-c, as shown in Fig. 1; an influent opening in said grit removal chamber vertical wall 26 below said at least one layer plate 40a-c wherein fluid and grit enters said grit removal chamber 24 through said influent opening, as shown in Fig. 1; and an effluent opening 90 in said grit removal chamber vertical wall 26 above said lamella plates 50 wherein said fluid exits said grit removal chamber 24 through said effluent opening 90, as shown in Fig. 1.
Deju lacks a plurality of tube settlers in said grit removal chamber around said central vertical axis and above said at least one layer plate.
Brown teaches a method for treating wastewater. Brown teaches that “primary sedimentation, or clarification, is the first process where removal of substantial quantities of suspended solids and materials causing biochemical oxygen demand in wastewater flow occurs. Sedimentation tanks, rectangular or circular, operate on a continuous flow-through basis, yet they maintain relative quiescence to permit suspended solids to settle if the specific gravity is greater than that of water, or to float if the specific gravity is less. Mechanical devices remove the accumulated suspended solids (sludge) from the tank bottom, while floatable materials (skimmings) are taken off the surface. The clarified liquor, known as primary effluent, is discharged over the tank's effluent weirs” (see col. 11, lines 58-67 and col. 12, lines 1-2). Brown further teaches that “based on discrete particles, removal of suspended solids is related to available surface area and is independent of tank depth. The use of inclined tubes or plates (lamella) within sedimentation tanks increases the theoretical tank surface area and reduces both the settling time of the particles and the depth at which they come to rest. With highly inclined plates or tubes, there is increased settling efficiency, and solids contact benefits may also be derived, but some problems with biological decomposition remain” (see col. 12, lines 32-40). This means that the used of lamella tubes (tube settlers) is an alternative to the use of lamella plates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the unit disclosed by Deju with a plurality of tube settlers instead of the lamella plates, as taught by Brown, in order to increase the surface area of the removal chamber and reduce the settling time of particles and since both tubes or plates are equivalents that would perform the same function (see col. 12, lines 32-40 of Brown).
With respect to claim 2, Deju as modified by Brown discloses wherein said plurality of tube settlers comprise an array of tube settlers defining flow paths through which wastewater flows upwardly, as shown in Fig. 11 of Deju.
With respect to claim 3, Deju discloses a center shaft 74 substantially coaxial with said central vertical axis and rotatable around said central vertical axis, as shown in Fig. 11; and blades 78 projecting from and rotatable with said center shaft 74, as shown in Fig. 10, said blades 78 being disposed above said opening 36 through said grit removal chamber bottom surface 30, as shown in Fig. 8.
With respect to claim 4, Deju discloses wherein said blades 78 are configured to direct flow of said fluid up around said center shaft 74 and assist with forcing grit toward said grit storage chamber 34, as shown in Fig. 11.
With respect to claim 5, Deju discloses wherein said grit removal chamber vertical wall 26 is substantially annular about said central vertical axis, as shown in Fig. 6.
With respect to claim 6, Deju discloses an enclosed influent channel 82 adapted to direct wastewater into said grit removal chamber 24 beneath said at least one layer plate 40a-c, as shown in Fig. 6.
With respect to claim 7, Deju discloses wherein said enclosed influent channel 82 is adapted to direct wastewater into said grit removal chamber 24 adjacent said grit removal chamber bottom surface 30 and substantially tangential to said grit removal chamber 24 substantially annular vertical wall 26, as shown in Fig. 6.
With respect to claims 8 and 16, Deju discloses wherein said at least one layer plate 40a-c has a center opening larger than said center shaft 74, as shown in Fig. 6.
With respect to claims 9 and 17, Deju as modified by Brown discloses a FOG removal system 92 in said grit removal chamber 24 above said tube settlers and located at or near the fluid surface near said effluent opening 90, as shown in Fig. 11 of Deju.
With respect to claim 10, Deju discloses wherein said at least one layer plate 40a-c comprises a first layer plate 40a, and second and third layer plates 40b-c vertically spaced from said first layer plate 40a with said second layer plate 40b between said first and third layer plates 40a, 40c, wherein said second layer plate 40b is substantially adjacent the grit removal chamber vertical wall 26 to substantially block fluid flow between the second layer plate 40b and the grit removal chamber wall 26, as shown in Fig. 11, and said third layer plate 40c is spaced from the grit removal chamber vertical wall 26 to allow fluid flow between the third layer plate 40c and the grit removal chamber vertical wall 26, as shown in Fig. 11.
With respect to claims 11, 19 and 24, Deju as modified by Brown discloses wherein said tube settlers are arrayed so that before exiting said grit removal chamber through said effluent opening 90, substantially all exiting wastewater flows up through at least one of said tube settlers, as shown in Fig. 11 of Deju.
With respect to claims 12, 20 and 25, Deju as modified by Brown discloses wherein said tube settlers from bottom end to top end lean radially outwardly from said central vertical axis, since this is the position of the plates 50 of Deju and it would be obvious that the tubes would lean in the same position, as shown in Fig. 11 of Deju.
With respect to claim 14, Deju discloses a grit removal unit 20, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a grit removal chamber 24 defined by a bottom surface 30 and a substantially annular vertical wall 26 extending up from said bottom surface 30, as shown in Fig. 1, said grit removal chamber 24 being substantially round about a central vertical axis, as shown in Fig. 1; a grit storage chamber 34 disposed below said grit removal chamber 24, as shown in Fig. 1, and at least one opening 36 through said grit removal chamber bottom surface 30 through which grit from said grit removal chamber 24 may pass into said grit storage chamber 34, as shown in Fig. 1; a center shaft 74 substantially coaxial with said central vertical axis and rotatable around said central vertical axis, as shown in Fig. 6; blades 78 projecting from and rotatable with said center shaft 74, as shown in Fig. 6, said blades 78 being disposed above said opening 36 through said grit removal chamber bottom surface 30 and configured to direct flow of said fluid up around said center shaft 74, as shown in Fig. 11; at least one layer plate 40a-c in said grit removal chamber 24, as shown in Fig. 1, said layer plate 40a-c being an inverted truncated cone annular around said central vertical axis, as shown in Fig. 1, said at least one layer plate 40a-c being spaced from the grit removal chamber vertical wall 26 to allow fluid flow between the at least one layer plate 40a-c and the grit removal chamber vertical wall 26, as shown in Fig. 11; a plurality of lamella plates 50 in said grit removal chamber 24 around said center shaft 74 and above said at least one layer plate 40a-c, as shown in Fig. 1; an influent opening in said grit removal chamber annular vertical wall 26 below said at least one layer plate 40a-c, as shown in Fig. 1, said fluid and grit entering said grit removal chamber 24 through said influent opening, as shown in Fig. 1; and an effluent opening 90 in said grit removal chamber annular vertical wall 26 above said lamella plates 50, as shown in Fig. 1, said fluid and grit exiting said grit removal chamber 24 through said effluent opening 88, as shown in Fig. 1.
Deju lacks a plurality of tube settlers in said grit removal chamber around said center shaft and above said at least one layer plate.
Brown teaches a method for treating wastewater. Brown teaches that “primary sedimentation, or clarification, is the first process where removal of substantial quantities of suspended solids and materials causing biochemical oxygen demand in wastewater flow occurs. Sedimentation tanks, rectangular or circular, operate on a continuous flow-through basis, yet they maintain relative quiescence to permit suspended solids to settle if the specific gravity is greater than that of water, or to float if the specific gravity is less. Mechanical devices remove the accumulated suspended solids (sludge) from the tank bottom, while floatable materials (skimmings) are taken off the surface. The clarified liquor, known as primary effluent, is discharged over the tank's effluent weirs” (see col. 11, lines 58-67 and col. 12, lines 1-2). Brown further teaches that “based on discrete particles, removal of suspended solids is related to available surface area and is independent of tank depth. The use of inclined tubes or plates (lamella) within sedimentation tanks increases the theoretical tank surface area and reduces both the settling time of the particles and the depth at which they come to rest. With highly inclined plates or tubes, there is increased settling efficiency, and solids contact benefits may also be derived, but some problems with biological decomposition remain” (see col. 12, lines 32-40). This means that the used of lamella tubes (tube settlers) is an alternative to the use of lamella plates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the unit disclosed by Deju with a plurality of tube settlers instead of the lamella plates, as taught by Brown, in order to increase the surface area of the removal chamber and reduce the settling time of particles and since both tubes or plates are equivalents that would perform the same function (see col. 12, lines 32-40 of Brown).
With respect to claim 15, Deju as modified by Brown discloses an effluent channel 88 adapted to direct fluid from said grit removal chamber 24 above said tube settlers, as shown in Fig. 1 of Deju.
With respect to claim 18, Deju discloses wherein there are at least three layer plates 40a-c in said grit removal chamber 24, as shown in Fig. 1, said layer plates 40a-c being inverted truncated cones annular around said central vertical axis, as shown in Fig. 1, said layer plates 40a-c being vertically spaced from one another wherein a middle one of the three layer plates 40a-c is substantially adjacent the grit removal chamber annular vertical wall 26 to substantially block fluid flow between the middle layer plate and the annular vertical wall 26, as shown in Fig. 11, and the layer plates above and below the middle layer plate are spaced from the grit removal chamber vertical wall 26 to allow fluid flow between the grit removal chamber vertical wall 26 and the layer plates above and below the middle layer plate, as shown in Fig. 11.
With respect to claim 22, Deju discloses a grit removal unit 20, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a grit removal chamber 24 defined by a bottom surface 30 and a substantially annular vertical wall 26 extending up from said bottom surface 30, as shown in Fig. 1, said grit removal chamber 24 being substantially round about a central vertical axis, as shown in Fig. 1; a grit storage chamber 34 disposed below said grit removal chamber 24, as shown in Fig. 1, and at least one opening 36 through said grit removal chamber bottom surface 30 through which grit from said grit removal chamber 24 may pass into said grit storage chamber 34, as shown in Fig. 1; a center shaft 74 substantially coaxial with said central vertical axis and rotatable around said central vertical axis, as shown in Fig. 6; blades 78 projecting from and rotatable with said center shaft 74, as shown in Fig. 6, said blades 78 being disposed adjacent and above said opening 36 through said grit removal chamber bottom surface 30 and configured to direct flow of said fluid up around said center shaft 74, as shown in Fig. 11; at least three layer plates 40a-c in said grit removal chamber 24, as shown in Fig. 1, said layer plates 40a-c being inverted truncated cones annular around said central vertical axis, as shown in Fig. 1, being vertically spaced from one another with a middle one of the three layer plates being substantially adjacent the grit removal chamber annular vertical wall 26 to substantially block fluid flow between the middle layer plate and the annular vertical wall, as shown in Fig. 11, and having center openings larger than said center shaft 74, as shown in Fig. 6; an array of lamella plates 50 in said grit removal chamber 24 around said center shaft 74 and above said layer plates 40a-c, as shown in Fig. 1; an enclosed influent channel 82 connected to an influent opening through said grit removal chamber annular vertical wall 26 below said layer plates 40a-c, as shown in Fig. 1, whereby wastewater is directed into said grit removal chamber 24 in a direction substantially tangential to said grit removal chamber annular vertical wall 26, as shown in Fig. 1; an effluent channel 88 connected to an effluent opening in said grit removal chamber annular vertical wall 26 above said lamella plates 50, as shown in Fig. 1, said fluid exiting said grit removal chamber 24 through said effluent opening, as shown in Fig. 1; and a FOG removal system 92 in said grit removal chamber 24 above said lamella plates 50 and at or near the fluid surface near said effluent opening, as shown in Fig. 11.
Deju lacks an array of tube settlers in said grit removal chamber around said center shaft and above said layer plates.
Brown teaches a method for treating wastewater. Brown teaches that “primary sedimentation, or clarification, is the first process where removal of substantial quantities of suspended solids and materials causing biochemical oxygen demand in wastewater flow occurs. Sedimentation tanks, rectangular or circular, operate on a continuous flow-through basis, yet they maintain relative quiescence to permit suspended solids to settle if the specific gravity is greater than that of water, or to float if the specific gravity is less. Mechanical devices remove the accumulated suspended solids (sludge) from the tank bottom, while floatable materials (skimmings) are taken off the surface. The clarified liquor, known as primary effluent, is discharged over the tank's effluent weirs” (see col. 11, lines 58-67 and col. 12, lines 1-2). Brown further teaches that “based on discrete particles, removal of suspended solids is related to available surface area and is independent of tank depth. The use of inclined tubes or plates (lamella) within sedimentation tanks increases the theoretical tank surface area and reduces both the settling time of the particles and the depth at which they come to rest. With highly inclined plates or tubes, there is increased settling efficiency, and solids contact benefits may also be derived, but some problems with biological decomposition remain” (see col. 12, lines 32-40). This means that the used of lamella tubes (tube settlers) is an alternative to the use of lamella plates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the unit disclosed by Deju with an array of tube settlers instead of the lamella plates, as taught by Brown, in order to increase the surface area of the removal chamber and reduce the settling time of particles and since both tubes or plates are equivalents that would perform the same function (see col. 12, lines 32-40 of Brown).
With respect to claim 23, Deju discloses wherein said wastewater flows through said layer plates 40a-c in a substantially serp entine path, as shown in Fig. 11.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
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 1-12, 14-20 and 22-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-38 of U.S. Patent No. 11,371,234 in view of Brown (US 6,960,304). U.S. Patent No. 11,371,234 claims all the claimed subject matter except a plurality of tube settlers. Brown teaches this limitation, as stated above, an it would be obvious to replace the lamella plates of U.S. Patent No. 11,371,234 with a plurality of tube settlers as taught by Brown in order to increase the surface area of the removal chamber and reduce the settling time of particles and since both tubes or plates are equivalents that would perform the same function (see col. 12, lines 32-40 of Brown).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 21 and 26 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 13, 21 and 26 would be allowed because the prior art of record does not show or suggest wherein said tube settlers are in an array around said central vertical axis, and said array comprises a plurality of tapered segments, each segment having a plurality of tube settlers, in combination with any remaining limitations in the claim. Deju and Brown lack these limitations and it would have not been obvious to modify because there is no reason or suggestion to do so and the unit would not operate as intended.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights