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 Interpretation
The following claim interpretations are herein presented to clarify on the record the limitation(s) recited in each of the noted claims:
In claim 15, “mean cell residence time” concerning the “biofilm forming bacteria” and the “suspended bacteria” is interpreted to mean the average time of which a microorganism remains in a wastewater treatment system before being removed through wasting or effluent discharge, which is the conventional or widespread accepted meaning of such terminology in the biological water treatment art.
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, in the “introducing wastewater” clause, it is unclear whether “wastewater” refers back to the same “wastewater” which was recited in the claim 1 preamble and in the “inlet zone” clause (“the” preceding “wastewater”); and
in the “filtering” clause, “filtrate has total suspended solids…” is grammatically unclear (“a” is needed between “has” and “total”.
In claim 5, it is unclear whether “filterable water” refers back to the “filterable water” introduced in claim 1 (“the” is suggested before “filterable”).
In claim 7 “excess” preceding “biofilm forming bacteria” is a vague relative term of unclear scope and meaning as to what quantity and/or extent of such bacteria constitutes “excess”.
In claim 9, it is unclear whether “a plurality of biofilm supporting media” is encompassed in, or includes “the biofilm supporting media” (singular) introduced in claim 1.
In claim 16, “to form the sludge with the at least 10,000mg/L of total suspended solids” lacks antecedent basis with respect to such amount of total suspended solids (TSS), (amending the clause to read “to form the sludge such that it contains at least 10,000mg/L of total suspended solids” is suggested).
In claim 17, “a level of dissolved oxygen in the sludge is no more than 0.5 mg/L” is ambiguous as to whether the claim refers to a given dissolved oxygen (DO) level which may fluctuate over time or which may vary as to location of the sludge.
In claim 18, in the phrase “water comprising suspended bacteria” clause, it is unclear whether “water” refers back to the term “wastewater” which was recited in the claim 18 preamble and in the “biofilm supporting media” clause.
In claim 21, it is unclear whether or not the phrase “bacteria…consumes the contaminants at a rate of at least 0.4 kg BOD/m2/day” is positively reciting any additional structural feature to further limit the “wastewater treatment plant” as recited in independent claim 18.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 only recites a possible functional effect of the wastewater treatment plant feature of “biofilm forming bacteria and does not appear to further limit the subject matter of apparatus or “plant” claim 18 from which it depends, since no new structural components or features of the filter cartridge are recited.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11, 14, 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagnew et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0071213 (Dagnew) in view of Dagnew et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0071213 (Dagnew) in view of Zadaka-Amir et al PGPUBS Document US 20190209974 (Zadaka-Amir), and Garrido Fernandez et al PGPUBS Document US 2015/0368131 (Garrido Fernandez).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Dagnew discloses: a method for removing contaminants from wastewater to produce a filtrate and a sludge;
the steps comprising: providing a bioreactor (membrane aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) 14, as illustrated in Figure 1 and described in [0009]) comprising:
an inlet zone for receiving wastewater (see figure 1 illustrating annular inlet space for mixing filterable water or effluent 22 and recycled activated sludge 32, as described in [0009]),
a filtration zone comprising a filter (ones of ZEEWEED membrane filtration modules 40 having membranes 42, as described in [0009 and 0015]); and
a reaction zone between the inlet zone and the filtration zone comprising a biofilm supporting media comprising a biofilm of biofilm forming bacteria thereon (ones of ZEELUNG membrane aeration biofilm modules 40 having membranes 42, as described in [0009, Table 1 and 0015]) , wherein the biofilm supporting media is provided in a sufficient quantity to enable the biofilm forming bacteria thereon to consume at least a portion of the contaminants from the wastewater [0016 re consuming the carbon of organic contaminants from the wastewater by causing them to be added to the membrane aerated biofilm and periodically later scoured by aeration, as well as consuming nitrate-containing contaminant by converting such into nitrogen],
to produce filterable water that has a total suspended solids of less than 5 g/L at the filtration zone [0016 re maintaining mixed liquor suspended concentrations (MLSS) of 2-3 g/L, thus less than 5 g/L); and
water comprising suspended bacteria [0015 and 0016 re presence of suspended bacteria in the water within the reactor]; and
introducing wastewater comprising contaminants to the inlet zone of the bioreactor (also see figure 1 illustrating flow into the annular inlet zone of the bioreactor from clarifier 12 through inlet line 22 as described in [0009]);
providing anoxic and/or aerobic conditions in the reaction zone of the bioreactor to cause the consumption of the contaminants by the biofilm forming bacteria on the biofilm supporting media and the suspended bacteria contained in the water to produce filterable water [0009, 0015 and 0016 re aerating the bioreactor tank so as to providing aerobic or anoxic conditions throughout the bioreactor, while providing effluent water to the ZEEWEED membrane filtration modules]; and
filtering the filterable water at the filtration zone to produce a filtrate and a sludge (figure 1 and [0009 and 0015-0016 re components of the bioreactor including the ZEEWEED membrane filtration modules which produces “mixed liquor 24” that is converted into effluent filtrate 26 and activated sludge in a downstream secondary clarifier 16]).
Claim 1 differs by requiring wherein the filtrate has total suspended solids of less than 10 mg/L with a flowrate of at least 2,000 L/h per m² of filter area.
Garrido Fernandez teaches a wastewater system and method, for treating urban and industrial wastewater, comprising providing a membrane bioreactor in which a final effluent is obtained which is free of suspended solids and also has a low concentration of nitrogen and organic matter [0001-0002], the membrane bioreactor combining aeration with submerged, microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane modules [0044], and in an embodiment having an aerobic filtration chamber using biofilm-growing filler material, upstream of the submerged, microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane modules [0055].
Garrido Fernandez teaches such configuration resulting in obtaining a treated water free, or virtually free, of suspended solids and microorganisms (i.e. having total suspended solids of less than 5g/L), with separated sludge being recirculated or purged [0055, 0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating wastewater in bioreactors to have modified the method of Dagnew, by configuring the bioreactor so as to locate an aerobic filtration chamber using biofilm-growing filler material, distinctly upstream of the submerged, microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane modules, as taught by Garrido Fernandez, so as to obtain a treated water free, or virtually free, of suspended solids and microorganisms (i.e. having total suspended solids of less than 5g/L), hence the treated water being more suitable for potable, residential or commercial use.
Zadaka-Amir teaches bioreactor membranes for wastewater separation, including removing suspended particles from liquid streams [0038], such membranes manufactured for having increased surface roughness so as to be subjected to cross-flow, turbulence and shearing eddies resulting in removal of foulants [0037, 0040 and 0041] and hence greater flux or flowrates through the membranes [0044]. Such membranes are disclosed as enabling high flow rates and permeability, expressed in a calculated relationship equivalent to the claimed range of a flowrate of at least 2,000 L/h per m² of filter area [0049].
It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating wastewater in bioreactors to have modified the method of Dagnew, by manufacturing the membranes of the disclosed membrane bioreactor modules to have increased surface roughness so as to be subjected to cross-flow, turbulence and shearing eddies resulting in removal of foulants [0037, 0040 and 0041] and hence greater flux or flowrates through the membranes, as taught by Zadaka-Amir, to enable high flow rates and permeability through the membranes, expressed in a calculated relationship equivalent to the claimed range of a flowrate of at least 2,000 L/h per m² of filter area, thus treating a larger total flow volume of wastewater.
For claim 2, Dagnew further suggests wherein the biofilm forming bacteria consumes at least 75% by mass of the contaminants [0016 regarding treating the wastewater in the bioreactor for a time period sufficient to maintain and reduce obtained mixed liquor suspended solids concentration to a range of 2-3 g/L, inherently consuming at least 75% by mass of the contaminants.
Such mass percentage consuming parameter is deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize levels and amounts of contaminants removed relative to amount of contamination in the wastewater being treated. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the Dagnew method, by optimizing the percentage of contaminants removed, so as to optimize levels and amounts of contaminants removed relative to amount of contamination in the wastewater being treated.
For claim 3, Dagnew teaches the method as further comprising transferring at least a portion of the sludge external of the bioreactor (figure 1 and [0009] regarding sludge transferred along with filtrate to clarifier 16 which is external to the bioreactor).
For claim 4, Dagnew teaches the method as further comprising transferring at least a portion of the sludge to the inlet zone (figure 1 and [0009] regarding sludge being returned to the inlet zone as returned activated sludge through line 32).
For claim 5, Dagnew lacks explicit recitation of wherein the transferring at least a portion of the sludge to the inlet zone step further comprises actively mixing the sludge with the wastewater and/or filterable water in a transfer pipe.
However Dagnew suggests the obviousness of combining and mixing activated sludge 28 with filterable water (influent wastewater 18) in a common transfer pipe, in Figure 1 illustrating close proximity of pipes for mixing the sludge and filterable water, as well as an annular inlet zone space in the bioreactor 14, and in the discussion of [0013] regarding stopping of flows of the filterable effluent (filterable water) and activated sludge, suggesting two separate valves for stopping and starting flows which could be made combinable .
It would have been further obvious for the skilled artisan to have modified the Dagnew method by actively mixing the sludge with the wastewater and/or filterable water or effluent in a transfer pipe, as suggested in Figure 1 and discussion of [0009 and 0013] in order to reduce space requirements for mixing the water and recycled activated sludge in the bioreactor 14, and to have simplified flow control of material into the bioreactor by shutting off flow of the water and the activated sludge with a single compact valve or other flow controller.
For claim 6, Garrido Fernandez suggests the method as further comprising aerating the water in the reaction zone such that the water comprises less than 5,000 mg/L of total suspended solids ([0024 re aerobic treatment in a filter chamber of a filtration stage [0024, 0032 and 0044], in combination with subsequent anaerobic treatment 0059], such that the treated wastewater is “substantially free of suspended solids and microorganisms (i.e. “comprises less than 5,000 mg/L of total suspended solids), facilitating potential reuse of the treated wastewater [0059].
Such total suspended solids parameter is deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize levels and amounts of suspended solids removed relative to amount of contamination in the wastewater being treated. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have thus been also obvious to have conducted the method of Dagnew by performing aerobic treatment sufficiently so as to result in treated wastewater which comprises less than 5,000 mg/L of total suspended solids, as taught by Garrido Fernandez, so as to be facilitating potential reuse of the treated wastewater, and so as to optimize levels and amounts of suspended solids removed relative to amount of contamination in the wastewater being treated.
For claim 7, Dagnew suggests the method as further comprising discharging excess biofilm forming bacteria on the biofilm supporting media into the water [0016 re scouring of the membrane aerated biofilm, hence necessarily discharging excess biofilm forming bacteria on the biofilm supporting media into the water].
For claim 8, Dagnew also suggests the method as further comprising aerating the biofilm supporting media to discharge excess biofilm forming bacteria on the biofilm supporting media into the water ([0015 re “membrane aerated biofilm modules] and [0016 re scouring of the membrane aerated biofilm, hence necessarily discharging excess biofilm forming bacteria on the biofilm supporting media into the water]).
For claim 9, Dagnew teaches the method wherein the bioreactor comprises a plurality of biofilm supporting media [0015 referring to a plurality of ZEELUNG membrane aeration biofilm modules].
For claim 10, Dagnew teaches wherein the inlet zone, filtration zone, and/or the reaction zone of the bioreactor comprises the plurality of biofilm supporting media (figure 1 and [0009 and 0016 regarding filtration and/or reaction zone of the bioreactor comprising plural such media]).
For claim 11, Dagnew teaches wherein the biofilm supporting media comprises a fixed media (suggested by figure 1 and [0015 re media located in plural such modules).
For claim 14, Garrido Fernandez further suggests wherein the biofilm forming bacteria of the biofilm supporting media consumes the contaminants at a rate of at least 0.4 kg BOD/m²/day [0002 re the biological treatment producing effluent of low chemical oxygen demand] and [0053 re degrading of between 60 and 85% of organic matter contained in the wastewater in terms of oxygen demand, and producing a biogas containing methane and carbon dioxide].
Such contaminant consuming rate parameter is deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize levels and amounts of bacteria, bacterial film and supporting medium relative to amount of contamination in the wastewater being treated. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have practiced the Dagnew method, by employing a sufficient quantity or surface area of biofilm supporting media consumes the contaminants at a rate of at least 0.4 kg BOD/m²/day, as taught by Garrido Fernandez, in order to degrade and remove a high percentage of harmful organic matter contaminants and so as to optimize levels and amounts of bacteria, bacterial film and supporting medium relative to amount of contamination in the wastewater being treated.
For independent claim 18, Dagnew discloses: a wastewater treatment plant for processing wastewater [0001, 0002 and 0009 re wastewater treatment conducted in a “plant” ([0001 re “wastewater treatment”], [0002 referring to “Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment”] and [0009 re the bioreactor being part of a more complex wastewater treatment system including primary and secondary clarifiers in combination with the bioreactor]) comprising:
a bioreactor (membrane aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) 14, as illustrated in Figure 1 and described in [0009]), comprising:
an inlet zone for receiving wastewater (see figure 1 illustrating annular inlet space for mixing filterable water or effluent 22 and recycled activated sludge 32, as described in [0009]),
a filtration zone comprising a filter (ones of ZEEWEED membrane filtration modules 40 having membranes 42, as described in [0009 and 0015]); and
a reaction zone between the inlet zone and the filtration zone comprising a biofilm supporting media comprising a biofilm of biofilm forming bacteria thereon (ones of ZEELUNG membrane aeration biofilm modules 40 having membranes 42, as described in [0009, Table 1 and 0015]) , wherein the biofilm supporting media is provided in a sufficient quantity to enable the biofilm forming bacteria thereon to consume at least a portion of the contaminants from the wastewater [0016 re consuming the carbon of organic contaminants from the wastewater by causing them to be added to the membrane aerated biofilm and periodically later scoured by aeration, as well as consuming nitrate-containing contaminant by converting such into nitrogen],
to produce filterable water that has a total suspended solids of less than 5 g/L at the filtration zone [0016 re maintaining mixed liquor suspended concentrations (MLSS) of 2-3 g/L, thus less than 5 g/L); and
water comprising suspended bacteria [0015 and 0016 re presence of suspended bacteria in the water within the reactor]; and
wherein the reaction zone comprises anoxic and/or aerobic conditions in the to cause consumption of the contaminants by the biofilm forming bacteria on the biofilm supporting media and the suspended bacteria contained in the water to produce filterable water [0009, 0015 and 0016 re aerating the bioreactor tank so as to providing aerobic or anoxic conditions throughout the bioreactor, while providing effluent water to the ZEEWEED membrane filtration modules]; and
wherein the filter produces a filtrate and a sludge from the filterable water (figure 1 and [0009 and 0015-0016 re components of the bioreactor including the ZEEWEED membrane filtration modules which produces “mixed liquor 24” that is converted into effluent filtrate 26 and activated sludge in a downstream secondary clarifier 16]).
Claim 18 differs by requiring wherein the filtrate has a total suspended solids of less than 10 mg/L with a flowrate of at least 2,000 L/h per m² of filter area.
Garrido Fernandez teaches a wastewater system and method, for treating urban and industrial wastewater, comprising providing a membrane bioreactor in which a final effluent is obtained which is free of suspended solids and also has a low concentration of nitrogen and organic matter [0001-0002], the membrane bioreactor combining aeration with submerged, microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane modules [0044], and in an embodiment having an aerobic filtration chamber using biofilm-growing filler material, upstream of the submerged, microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane modules [0055].
Garrido Fernandez teaches such configuration resulting in obtaining a treated water free, or virtually free, of suspended solids and microorganisms (i.e. having total suspended solids of less than 5g/L), with separated sludge being recirculated or purged [0055, 0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating wastewater in bioreactors to have modified the wastewater treatment plant of Dagnew, by configuring the bioreactor so as to locate an aerobic filtration chamber using biofilm-growing filler material, distinctly upstream of the submerged, microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane modules, as taught by Garrido Fernandez, so as to obtain a treated water free, or virtually free, of suspended solids and microorganisms (i.e. having total suspended solids of less than 5g/L), hence the treated water being made more suitable for potable, residential or commercial use.
Zadaka-Amir teaches bioreactor membranes for wastewater separation, including removing suspended particles from liquid streams [0038], such membranes manufactured for having increased surface roughness so as to be subjected to cross-flow, turbulence and shearing eddies resulting in removal of foulants [0037, 0040 and 0041] and hence greater flux or flowrates through the membranes [0044]. Such membranes are disclosed as enabling high flow rates and permeability, expressed in a calculated relationship equivalent to the claimed range of a flowrate of at least 2,000 L/h per m² of filter area [0049].
It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating wastewater in bioreactors to have modified the wastewater treatment plant of Dagnew, by utilizing the membranes of the disclosed membrane bioreactor modules which are manufactured so as to have increased surface roughness so as to be subjected to cross-flow, turbulence and shearing eddies resulting in removal of foulants [0037, 0040 and 0041] and hence greater flux or flowrates through the membranes, as taught by Zadaka-Amir, to enable high flow rates and permeability through the membranes, expressed in a calculated relationship equivalent to the claimed range of a flowrate of at least 2,000 L/h per m² of filter area, thus treating a larger total flow volume of wastewater.
For claim 19, Dagnew teaches wherein the biofilm supporting media comprises a fixed media (suggested by figure 1 and [0015 re media located in plural such modules).
For claim 21, Garrido Fernandez further suggests wherein the biofilm forming bacteria of the biofilm supporting media consumes the contaminants at a rate of at least 0.4 kg BOD/m²/day [0002 re the biological treatment producing effluent of low chemical oxygen demand] and [0053 re degrading of between 60 and 85% of organic matter contained in the wastewater in terms of oxygen demand, and producing a biogas containing methane and carbon dioxide].
Such contaminant consuming rate parameter is deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize levels and amounts of bacteria, bacterial film and supporting medium relative to amount of contamination in the wastewater being treated. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the bioreactor of the Dagnew wastewater treatment plant, by utilizing a sufficient quantity or surface area of biofilm supporting media consumes the contaminants at a rate of at least 0.4 kg BOD/m²/day, as taught by Garrido Fernandez, in order to degrade and remove a high percentage of harmful organic matter contaminants, and so as to optimize levels and amounts of bacteria, bacterial film and supporting medium relative to amount of contamination in the wastewater being treated.
Claims 12, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagnew et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0071213 (Dagnew) in view of Zadaka-Amir et al PGPUBS Document US 20190209974 (Zadaka-Amir) and Garrido Fernandez et al PGPUBS Document US 2015/0368131 (Garrido Fernandez), as applied to claims 1-11, 14, 18, 19 and 21 above, and further in view of the Escapenet English translation of publication CN 108862565 (Publication ‘565 or ’565).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents and of the Escapenet English translation are identified with “[ ]” symbols. For the Escapenet English translation, the “[ ]” symbols referring to the paragraph immediately above or preceding the “[ ]” in the translation.
Claim 12 further differs by requiring wherein the biofilm supporting media comprises a suspended media.
Publication ‘565 teaches biological water treatment including utilizing a membrane bioreactor for treatment of wastewater which also contains microorganisms and pathogens [0014];
and employs a biofilm carrier media for supporting bacteria for biodegrading the contaminants in the form of a plastic shell comprising a foam including such polyurethane sponge, such media being freely movable, thus suspended, in the water being treated [0016].
Publication ‘565 teaches that such biofilm has the advantages of: achieving different redox conditions within the biofilm and improving stability of treatment performance [0015], and being more freely movable in the water being treated, having good mass transfer effect and being conducive to the adsorption and degradation of pollutants by the microorganisms [0016].
It would have thus been additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the biological wastewater treatment art to have modified the Dagnew method by either substituting such freely movable media comprising biofilm-forming polyurethane sponge or sponges taught by ‘565, for the disclosed ZEELUNG membrane aeration biofilm modules 40, or alternately by additionally providing such sponge or sponges comprising media,
in order to achieve advantages of achieving different redox conditions within the biofilm and improving stability of treatment performance, and being more freely movable in the water being treated, having good mass transfer effect and being conducive to the adsorption and degradation of pollutants by the microorganisms.
Claim 13 further differs from Dagnew by requiring wherein the suspended media comprises a sponge comprising polyurethane.
Publication ‘565 teaches biological water treatment including utilizing a membrane bioreactor for treatment of wastewater which also contains microorganisms and pathogens [0014]; and
employs a biofilm carrier for supporting bacteria for biodegrading the contaminants in the form of a plastic shell comprising a foam including such polyurethane sponge.
Publication ‘565 teaches that such biofilm has the advantages of: achieving different redox conditions within the biofilm and improving stability of treatment performance [0015], and being more freely movable in the water being treated, having good mass transfer effect and being conducive to the adsorption and degradation of pollutants by the microorganisms [0016].
It would have thus been additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the biological wastewater treatment art to have modified the Dagnew method by either substituting such biofilm-forming media comprising polyurethane sponge or sponges taught by ‘565, for the disclosed ZEELUNG membrane aeration biofilm modules 40, or alternately by additionally providing such sponge or sponges comprising media,
in order to achieve advantages of achieving different redox conditions within the biofilm and improving stability of treatment performance, and being more freely movable in the water being treated, having good mass transfer effect and being conducive to the adsorption and degradation of pollutants by the microorganisms.
Claim 20 further differs by requiring wherein the biofilm supporting media comprises a suspended media.
Publication ‘565 teaches biological water treatment including utilizing a membrane bioreactor for treatment of wastewater which also contains microorganisms and pathogens [0014];
and employs a biofilm carrier media for supporting bacteria for biodegrading the contaminants in the form of a plastic shell comprising a foam including such polyurethane sponge, such media being freely movable, thus suspended, in the water being treated [0016].
Publication ‘565 teaches that such biofilm has the advantages of: achieving different redox conditions within the biofilm and improving stability of treatment performance [0015], and being more freely movable in the water being treated, having good mass transfer effect and being conducive to the adsorption and degradation of pollutants by the microorganisms [0016].
It would have thus been additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the biological wastewater treatment art to have modified the Dagnew wastewater treatment plant by either substituting such freely movable media comprising biofilm-forming polyurethane sponge or sponges taught by ‘565, for the disclosed ZEELUNG membrane aeration biofilm modules 40, or alternately by additionally providing such sponge or sponges comprising media,
in order to achieve advantages of achieving different redox conditions within the biofilm and improving stability of treatment performance, and being more freely movable in the water being treated, having good mass transfer effect and being conducive to the adsorption and degradation of pollutants by the microorganisms.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagnew et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0071213 (Dagnew) in view of Zadaka-Amir et al PGPUBS Document US 20190209974 (Zadaka-Amir) and Garrido Fernandez et al PGPUBS Document US 2015/0368131 (Garrido Fernandez), as applied to claims 1-11, 14, 18, 19 and 21 above, and further in view of the Machine English translation of Publication WO 2016/021766 (publication ‘766).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents and of the Escapenet English translation are identified with “[ ]” symbols. For the Escapenet English translation, the “[ ]” symbols referring to the paragraph immediately above or preceding the “[ ]” in the translation.
Claim 15 further differs by requiring wherein the biofilm forming bacteria has a longer mean cell residence time than the suspended bacteria.
Publication ‘766 teaches in the Technical Field Section, in the 1st paragraph and in the paragraph beginning “In addition”, the wastewater being treated for removal of nitrogen by a biofilm formed by a microorganism and adhered bacteria which grow and are attached to a carrier, such bacteria adhering to biofilms operated with a long SRT or microbial residence time and being more resistant to toxicity and load fluctuations than floating growth microorganisms or suspended bacteria, thus inherently having a longer mean cell residence time than the suspended bacteria.
Publication ‘766 also suggests such bacteria as creating very favorable conditions for nitrification reactions with the wastewater treated.
It would have thus been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have practiced or modified the Dagnew method by employing biofilm-adhering bacteria having a relatively longer mean cell residence time than the suspended bacteria, as taught by WO ‘766, so as to create very favorable conditions for nitrification reactions with the wastewater treated.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagnew et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0071213 (Dagnew) in view of Zadaka-Amir et al PGPUBS Document US 20190209974 (Zadaka-Amir) and Garrido Fernandez et al PGPUBS Document US 2015/0368131 (Garrido Fernandez), as applied to claims 1-11, 14, 18, 19 and 21 above, and further in view of the Escapenet English translation of publication CN 107158957 (Publication ‘957 or ’957).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents and of the Escapenet English translation are identified with “[ ]” symbols. For the Escapenet English translation, the “[ ]” symbols referring to the paragraph immediately above or preceding the “[ ]” in the translation.
For claim 16, Dagnew teaches wherein the filter comprises a permeable substrate [0015, 0016].
Claim 16 differs by requiring the method steps as deliberately fouling the permeable substrate to form a layer of deposited solids from the filterable water on the permeable substrate,
removing at least a portion of the layer, and
mixing the removed portion of the layer with at least a portion of the filterable water.
Publication ‘957 teaches wastewater treatment employing a filter membrane, and concern with minimizing membrane fouling [0001, 0008, 0017], the minimizing of membrane fouling accomplished by adding a layer of deposited, solidified enzyme beads, i.e. “solids” from the water to the permeable substrate of the membrane [0017, 0025, 0035], removing at least a portion of such of layer and other solids during membrane flushing or other cleaning, on a delayed basis after the membrane becomes fouled, thus necessarily mixing the removed portion of the layer with the filterable water [0008, 0017].
Dagnew teaches the filterable water forming the sludge with the at least 10,000 mg/L of total suspended solids [0015, 0016].
Thus, it would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan, to have further modified the Dagnew method, by such method steps of depositing a solid layer on the membrane, and periodically removing such layer and other solids from the membrane when the membrane becomes fouled, as taught by ‘957, in order to extend the operating periods of the membrane modules, allow more continuous operation, and minimize needed maintenance of the membrane modules.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagnew et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0071213 (Dagnew) in view of Zadaka-Amir et al PGPUBS Document US 20190209974 (Zadaka-Amir) and Garrido Fernandez et al PGPUBS Document US 2015/0368131 (Garrido Fernandez), as applied to claims 1-11, 14, 18, 19 and 21 above, and further in view of Zhao et al PGPUBS Document US 2013/0264280 (Zhao).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 17 differs by requiring wherein a level of dissolved oxygen in the sludge is no more than 0.5 mg/L.
Zhao teaches wastewater treatment including by a biofilm-containing reactor, aerated filter and one or more clarifiers (Abstract, [0027, 0032]. Zhao teaches to utilize a relatively thin biofilm and controlled nitration, so as to maintain a lower dissolved oxygen (DO) level in the effluent and sludge flocs, i.e. sludge generated by the system employing the above units [0044-0045].
Zhao teaches that attaining of such low DO levels result in reduction of mass transfer resistance into the sludge flocs and into the biofilm layer, and improved sludge retention time, thus improving flow through the system and reducing required reactor volume.
Such dissolved oxygen level parameter is deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize flow through the system and bioreactor volume. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have accordingly been additionally obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Dagnew plant or system, by incorporating means for controlling and reducing DO effluent levels in the effluent and sludge by maintaining a relatively thin biofilm and sludge flocs, as taught by Zhao, in order to reduce mass transfer resistance into the sludge flocs and into the biofilm layer, and yield improved sludge retention time, thus improving and optimizing flow through the system and required reactor volume.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagnew et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0071213 (Dagnew) in view of Zadaka-Amir et al PGPUBS Document US 20190209974 (Zadaka-Amir) and Garrido Fernandez et al PGPUBS Document US 2015/0368131 (Garrido Fernandez), as applied to claims 1-11, 14, 18, 19 and 21 above, and further in view of Boltz et al PGPUBS Document US 2015/0336827 (Boltz).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 22 further differs by requiring the plant as comprising a media screen in the reaction zone to prevent the biofilm supporting media from entering the filtration zone.
Boltz teaches a bioreactor system and method employing a mobile supported biofilm (Abstract, [0007-0008 re the biofilm being utilized for oxidation and reduction of nitrogenous compounds from contaminated wastewater], and also teaches to employ stainless steel screens for retaining the biofilm containers within a bioreactor zone, or aerobic or anoxic zones of wastewater systems [0011].
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the plant or system of Dagnew, by utilizing such media screen, as taught by Boltz, so as to prevent the biofilm supporting media from entering the filtration zone, and thus becoming depleted and to maintain desired aerobic or anoxic conditions in the zone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular interest , Josse et al PGPUBS Document US 2003/0201225 teaches a wastewater treatment plant for biological wastewater treatment which includes centrifugal decanting, flocculation and biological removal of dissolved organic matter, phosphorus and nitrogen, in a microfiltration membrane bioreactor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
07/17/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights