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 is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controlling means for adjusting the amount of OT effluent 14 that is recirculated to the BAF reactor(s)” in claim 37.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 20-39 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.
The claims are replete with antecedent basis issues (as well as whether recited process elements refer back to the same process element initially recited in the claim, or in another preceding claim), including at least:
Claim 20: BAF, polluted water, adsorbent carrier material, organic micropollutants, microorganisms, water.
Claim 22: formation of oxidation products, end of the OT, end of the BAF, amount of BAF-OT treated water, consecutive steps, BAF, OT, output, monitoring step.
Claim 23: oxidant.
Claim 24: feed, oxygen.
Claim 25: hydraulic retention time, inlet.
Claim 26: superficial flow velocity.
Claim 28: outflow.
Claim 29: applied specific ozone dose.
Claim 32: water, OT effluent, organic materials, polluted water, total reactor volume.
Claim 35: biological adsorbent filter, filter bed, carrier material, micropollutants, surface, a water (overflow) outlet.
Claim 36: filter bed.
These claims are also replete with vague, ambiguous terminology of indefinite scope including at least:
Claim 20: any type, can both, water or wastewater (does one further limit the other? Is there overlap?).
Claim 21: involves or is.
Claim 24: involves, any suitable means.
Claim 27: any other suitable material.
Claim 29: involves or is.
Claims 30-32: water or wastewater (see above note).
Claim 34: involves or is.
Claim 35: suitable for, one or more BAF and one or more OT (how can there be one BAF/OT in series? & inconstant terminology), (overflow).
Claim 38: involves.
The examiner would also like to note there are many instances where claimed terms are recited with similar, but inconsistent terms. The Applicant should recite all limitations that are intended to be the same, with the same terminology consistently throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 37, the claim limitation “controlling means for” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no association between a structure and the function that can be found in the specification. The use of the same claimed phrasing “controlling means for” is not sufficient to link structure to the claimed function within the specification. Sufficient structure may be a valve, a solenoid, a flow restrictor; however, structure cannot be found regarding this function within the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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 26 limits a non-required limitation of the Markush grouping from claim 25, wherein claim 25 recites, “hydraulic retention time … and/or hydraulic reception time and superficial flow velocity …” then attempts to further limit the superficial flow velocity in claim 26, which is not required if the first group of claim 25 was elected. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 20-24, 26-28, 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (US20190023593A1), in view of Conner (US20110005284A1).
Regarding claim 20, Gonzalez teaches a process for the removal of organic micropollutants from water, {[0026] re. treating micropollutants by a system & [0027] re. wastewater} comprising subjecting the water to a consecutive combination of biological adsorbent filtration (BAF) {[0027] re. biological adsorbent} followed by oxidation treatment (OT), {[0027] re. oxidation step with ozone} wherein BAF is the first micropollutant removal step, {[0027] re. ozone in ozonation step introduced downstream of the biological adsorbing treatment unit}
wherein the BAF is a reactor which is provided with a biological adsorbent filter in the form of a bed of adsorbent carrier material {[0028] re. biological reactor, [0032] re. adsorbent powdered activated carbon (PAC), & [0036] re. a moving or fixed bed reactor} upon which microorganisms adhere which degrade the organic micropollutants in the polluted water, {[0057] re. microorganisms enhancing the adsorption steps}
and wherein the polluted water is led through the bed of adsorbent carrier material, {[0036] re. biological treatment unit included a moving or fixed bed reactor} wherein the BAF comprises any type of adsorbent carrier material, provided the carrier material can both adsorb organic micropollutants and provide a surface for microorganisms to grow. {[0032] re. adsorbent powdered activated carbon (PAC) & [0057] re. microorganisms enhancing the adsorption steps}
Gonzalez fails to teach wherein the reactor is filled with the adsorbent carrier material to a content of the total reactor volume ranging between 50 - 80%; and wherein the consecutive biological adsorbent filtration (BAF) and oxidation treatment (OT) are preceded by a water or wastewater purification process.
Conner, similar to Gonzalez, teaches a BAF reactor {Conner, [0020] re. biological regeneration reactor including adsorbent} and an oxidation reactor {Conner, [0047] re. biological oxidation}. Conner teaches wherein the reactor is filled with the adsorbent carrier material to a content of the total reactor volume ranging between 50 - 80%. {[0038] re, 80% by volume}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the range of Conner teaches the claimed range, as case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2144.05(I) One would be motivated to utilize the range of Conner as, Gonzalez failed to disclose experimental parameters, however, given Conner and Gonzalez are highly analogous in regards to their treatment of wastewater through biological adsorption and oxidation treatments, one of reasonable skill in the art would expect reasonable success when using experimental parameters taught by Conner, within the invention of Gonzalez.
Conner further teaches wherein the consecutive biological adsorbent filtration (BAF) and oxidation treatment (OT) are preceded by a water or wastewater purification process. {[0044] re. upstream wastewater treatment}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to precede the system of Gonzalez with Conner’s teachings of a water or wastewater purification process as Conner, similar to Gonzalez, teaches a BAF reactor {Conner, [0020] re. biological regeneration reactor including adsorbent} and an oxidation reactor {Conner, [0047] re. biological oxidation}. One would be motivated as serial treatment is well known in the art; and modifying Gonzalez to include an upstream wastewater treatment process, would improve the treatment by further removing contaminants, as some wastewater facilities must have their effluent fall below a certain discharge concentration threshold, and serial treatment with the system of Gonzalez would help meet those requirements. {Conner, [0044] re. mandated discharge levels}
Regarding claim 21, Gonzalez teaches wherein the oxidation treatment involves or is an ozone treatment. {[0027] re. ozone in ozonation step}
Regarding claim 22, Gonzales teaches and controlling the amount of BAF-OT treated water which is recirculated to the consecutive steps of BAF and OT. {[0039] re. recirculating sludge in the recirculation circuit}
Gonzalez fails to teach comprising monitoring the formation of oxidation products at the end of the OT and/or monitoring total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), specific UV absorbance (SUVA), bromide, ammonium, and/or other quality parameters and/or specifically targeted micropollutants in or at the end of the BAF; and the recirculating is based on the output of the monitoring step.
Conner teaches comprising monitoring the formation of oxidation products at the end of the OT and/or monitoring total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), specific UV absorbance (SUVA), bromide, ammonium, and/or other quality parameters and/or specifically targeted micropollutants in or at the end of the BAF; {[0147] re. sensor in many locations throughout the system and monitoring of organic or inorganic concentrations between the inlet to the discharge line} and the recirculating is based on the output of the monitoring step. {[0148] re. recycled amount dependent on operational sensors}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the system of Gonzalez, Conner’s teachings of monitoring the formation of oxidation products at the end of the OT and/or monitoring total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), specific UV absorbance (SUVA), bromide, ammonium, and/or other quality parameters and/or specifically targeted micropollutants in or at the end of the BAF; and the recirculating is based on the output of the monitoring step as Conner and Gonzalez teach wastewater treatment process utilizing the same biological adsorption and oxidation treatment. Doing so would increase the control of the operational parameters in the system, as it Is well known in the art that the automation utilizing automatic, in-line sensors and controls {Conner, [0147]} saves the user time, while providing more precise and accurate results.
Regarding claim 23, Gonzalez teaches wherein the oxidant in the OT is Cl2, ClO, ClO2,ClO3, H202, Fenton, ferrate, ozone, or combinations thereof. {[0027] re. ozone in ozonation step}
Regarding claim 24, Gonzalez teaches wherein the oxygen is provided by any suitable means to the feed of the BAF and/or in the BAF. {[0056] re. biological oxidation step of aerobic treatment requiring an oxygen supply }
Gonzalez fails to teach wherein the oxygen concentration in the feed of the BAF is in the range of 3 - 25 g/m3.
Conner teaches wherein the oxygen concentration in the feed of the BAF is in the range of 3 - 25 g/m3. {[0064] re. oxygen being added to mixed liquor to improve bacteria/biological activity to remove pollutants and the concentration of oxygen ranges from air to pure oxygen.}
While Gonzalez modified by Conner is silent to the range of 3 – 25 g/m3, Conner teaches how oxygen concentrations can vary the effectiveness of the aerobic treatment. {Conner, [0064]} As the claimed oxygen concentration is a variable that can be modified, among others, by optimizing the feed rate, it would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed oxygen concentration cannot be considered critical. See Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the oxygen concentration in the treatment process of Gonzalez modified by Conner to increase the biological growth and disinfection capabilities of the biological components. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 26, Gonzalez fails to teach wherein the superficial flow velocity of the water in the BAF, measured at the inlet of BAF, is between 0.1 and 40 m/h.
Conner teaches wherein the superficial flow velocity of the water in the BAF, measured at the inlet of BAF. {[0112] re. flow rate for "in-feed" (inlet to the BAF)}
Conner is silent to an inlet, however, as Conner teaches an “infeed” [0112], an inlet inherently exists where the “in-feed” is entering the BAF reactor.
Gonzalez modified by Conner is silent to the flow velocity is between 0.1 and 40 m/h, however, the claimed flow velocity range is a variable that can be modified, among others and would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed flow velocity cannot be considered critical. See Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the flow rate range in the treatment process of Gonzalez modified by Conner to increase throughput of the filtration process without compromising the treatment capabilities of the biological components. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 27, Gonzalez fails to teach wherein the BAF is forward- and/or backwashed and/or washed in any other direction, by means of water, air or any other suitable material.
Conner teaches wherein the BAF is forward- and/or backwashed and/or washed in any other direction, by means of water, air or any other suitable material. {[0138] re. continuous backwash for adsorbent material}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the BAF reactor of Gonzalez to include Conner’s teachings wherein the BAF is forward- and/or backwashed and/or washed in any other direction, by means of water, air or any other suitable material as doing so prolong the treatment components, as washing is a form of maintenance, which is well known to prolong the lifespan of components in a process, thus saving the user costs and time; while also removing excess biomass from the system. {Conner, [0138]}
Regarding claim 28, Gonzalez teaches that the outflow of the BAF is fed to the OT. {[0039] re. recirculating sludge in the recirculation circuit}
Gonzalez fails to teach wherein an adjustable amount of the flow of the BAF ranging between 10 - 100% of the outflow of the BAF.
Conner teaches wherein an adjustable amount of the flow of the BAF ranging between 10 - 100% of the outflow of the BAF. {[0150] re. flow rate of the system for sufficient residence time of contaminated fluid}
Gonzalez modified by Conner is silent to a recirculation range of 10 – 100%, however, the claimed recirculation % is a variable that can be modified, among others and would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed recirculation range cannot be considered critical. See Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the recirculation rate range in the treatment process of Gonzalez modified by Conner to decrease the amount of material necessary to input into the filtration process through recycling without compromising the treatment capabilities of the biological components. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Gonzalez fails to teach wherein the preceding water or wastewater purification process comprises treatment with activated sludge, aerobic granular sludge, moving bed bioreactor (MBBR), integrated fixed film activate sludge (IFAS) and/or chemical/physical treatment; (Claim 30) and wherein the consecutive biological adsorbent filtration (BAF) and oxidation treatment (OT) are used to treat brines and/or concentrate streams produced in the purification of water and wastewater. (Claim 31)
Conner teaches wherein the preceding water or wastewater purification process comprises treatment with activated sludge, aerobic granular sludge, moving bed bioreactor (MBBR), integrated fixed film activate sludge (IFAS) and/or chemical/physical treatment; (Claim 30) {[0044] re. upstream wastewater treatment} and wherein the consecutive biological adsorbent filtration (BAF) and oxidation treatment (OT) are used to treat brines and/or concentrate streams produced in the purification of water and wastewater. (Claim 31) {[0044] re. upstream wastewater treatment and activated sludge/aeration processes}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gonzalez with Conner’s teachings wherein the preceding water or wastewater purification process comprises treatment with activated sludge, aerobic granular sludge, moving bed bioreactor (MBBR), integrated fixed film activate sludge (IFAS) and/or chemical/physical treatment; (Claim 30) and wherein the consecutive biological adsorbent filtration (BAF) and oxidation treatment (OT) are used to treat brines and/or concentrate streams produced in the purification of water and wastewater (Claim 31) as wherein multiple treatment processes in series further improves the quality of the effluent, which is often required by mandated environmental discharge limits. {Conner, [0044] re. mandated discharge levels}
Regarding claim 32, Gonzalez teaches a process for the removal of organic micropollutants from water, {[0026] re. treating micropollutants by a system & [0027] re. wastewater} comprising subjecting the water to a consecutive combination of biological adsorbent filtration (BAF) followed by oxidation treatment (OT), {[0027] re. ozone in ozonation (OT) step introduced downstream of the biological adsorbing treatment unit (BAF)}
wherein an adjustable amount of the OT effluent, is recirculated to the BAF, {[0073] re. recirculating a fraction of sludge in the recirculation circuit. Note the "fraction" of sludge is variable, thus is adjustable}
wherein the BAF is a reactor which is provided with a biological adsorbent filter in the form of a bed of adsorbent carrier material {[0028] re. biological reactor & [0032] re. adsorbent powdered activated carbon (PAC)} upon which microorganisms adhere which degrade the organic materials including micropollutants in the polluted water, {[0057] re. microorganisms enhancing the adsorption steps}
and wherein the polluted water is led through the bed of adsorbent carrier material, {[0036] re. biological treatment unit included a moving or fixed bed reactor}
wherein the BAF comprises any type of adsorbent carrier material, provided the carrier material can both adsorb micropollutants and provide a surface for microorganisms to grow. {[0032] re. adsorbent powdered activated carbon (PAC) & [0057] re. microorganisms enhancing the adsorption steps}
Gonzalez fails to teach wherein the reactor is filled with the adsorbent carrier material to a content of the total reactor volume ranging between 50 - 80%; and wherein the consecutive biological adsorbent filtration (BAF) and oxidation treatment (OT) are preceded by a water or wastewater purification process.
Conner teaches wherein the reactor is filled with the adsorbent carrier material to a content of the total reactor volume ranging between 50 - 80%. {[0038] re, 80% by volume}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the range of Conner teaches the claimed range, as case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2144.05(I) One would be motivated to utilize the range of Conner as, Gonzalez failed to disclose experimental parameters, however, given Conner and Gonzalez are highly analogous in regards to their treatment of wastewater through biological adsorption and oxidation treatments, one of reasonable skill in the art would expect reasonable success when using experimental parameters taught by Conner, within the invention of Gonzalez.
Conner further teaches wherein the consecutive biological adsorbent filtration (BAF) and oxidation treatment (OT) are preceded by a water or wastewater purification process. {[0044] re. upstream wastewater treatment}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to precede the system of Gonzalez with Conner’s teachings of a water or wastewater purification process as serial treatment is well known in the art; and modifying Gonzalez to include an upstream wastewater treatment process, would improve the treatment by further removing contaminants, as some wastewater facilities must have their effluent fall below a certain discharge concentration threshold, and serial treatment with the system of Gonzalez would help meet those requirements. {Conner, [0044] re. mandated discharge levels}
Regarding claim 33, Gonzalez fails to teach wherein the adjustable amount of the OT effluent that is recirculated to the BAF ranges between 20 - 90%.
Conner teaches wherein the adjustable amount of the OT effluent that is recirculated to the BAF ranges between 20 - 90%. {[0148] re. recycled amount dependent on operational sensors}
Gonzalez modified by Conner is silent to a recirculation range of 20 – 90%, however, the claimed recirculation % is a variable that can be modified, among others and would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed recirculation range cannot be considered critical. See Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the recirculation rate range in the treatment process of Gonzalez modified by Conner to decrease the amount of material necessary to input into the filtration process through recycling without compromising the treatment capabilities of the biological components. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 34, Gonzalez teaches wherein OT involves or is ozone treatment. {[0027] re. ozone in ozonation step}
Claim(s) 25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (US20190023593A1) modified by Conner (US20110005284A1), in view of de Wilt (Enhanced pharmaceutical removal from water in a three step bio-ozone-bio process).
Regarding claims 25 and 29, Gonzalez teaches wherein OT involves or is ozone treatment. (Claim 29) {[0027] re. ozone in ozonation step}
Gonzalez modified by Conner fail to teach wherein the hydraulic retention time of the water flow in the BAF is between 5 and 180 minutes; and/or wherein the hydraulic retention time and superficial flow velocity in the BAF are adjustable by means of changing the inlet water flow of the BAF by a buffer prior to the BAF; (Claim 25) and wherein the applied specific ozone dose is between 0.05 and 2.0 g O3/g DOC, and/or between 0.05 and 2 g O3/g TOC. (Claim 29)
de Wilt teaches wherein the hydraulic retention time of the water flow in the BAF is between 5 and 180 minutes; and/or wherein the hydraulic retention time and superficial flow velocity in the BAF are adjustable by means of changing the inlet water flow of the BAF by a buffer prior to the BAF; (Claim 25) {HRT of 1.46 hours} and wherein the applied specific ozone dose is between 0.05 and 2.0 g O3/g DOC, and/or between 0.05 and 2 g O3/g TOC. (Claim 29) {Figure 3 re. ozone doses of 0.1-0.5 O3/g TOC}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gonzalez modified by Conner with de Wilt’s teachings wherein the hydraulic retention time of the water flow in the BAF is between 5 and 180 minutes; and/or wherein the hydraulic retention time and superficial flow velocity in the BAF are adjustable by means of changing the inlet water flow of the BAF by a buffer prior to the BAF; (Claim 25) and wherein the applied specific ozone dose is between 0.05 and 2.0 g O3/g DOC, and/or between 0.05 and 2 g O3/g TOC. (Claim 29) as de Wilt, similar to Gonzalez modified by Conner teach processes for the treatment of wastewater through the combination of BAF and OT. Given Gonzalez does not specify parameters associated with hydraulic retention time one would be motivated to set the parameters of Gonzalez modified by Conner to the parameters taught by de Wilt and expect reasonable success regarding the efficient treatment of pollutants in the solution.
Claim(s) 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (US20190023593A1) modified by Conner (US20110005284A1), in view of McGinness (US20030047521A1).
Regarding claim 35, Gonzalez teaches wherein the BAF reactor(s) is(are) provided with a water inlet and an inlet for oxygen. {[0076] re. wastewater inlet}
Gonzalez is silent to an inlet for oxygen, however, Gonzalez teaches oxygen may be supplied to the reaction tank for aeration during biological treatment, {[0056} thus this invention inherently contains an oxygen inlet from the taught, oxygen supply.
Gonzalez further teaches wherein the BAF reactor(s) is provided with a biological adsorbent filter comprising a filter bed, {[0028] re. biological reactor, [0032] re. adsorbent powdered activated carbon (PAC), & [0036] re. a moving or fixed bed reactor} wherein the filter bed contains any type of carrier material, provided the carrier material can both adsorb micropollutants and provide a surface for microorganisms to grow, {[0032] re. adsorbent powdered activated carbon (PAC) & [0057] re. microorganisms enhancing the adsorption steps}
and a water (overflow) outlet to the OT or to the next BAF reactor in series, and optionally connections for a washing unit 15a, {[0044] re. discharge circuit (containing the OT and the BAF) are in fluid communication with each other and other systems of the process}
and wherein the OT reactor(s) is(are) provided with a water inlet from the BAF reactor(s) outlet, {[0044] re. discharge circuit (containing the OT and the BAF) are in fluid communication with each other and other systems of the process}
a water (overflow) outlet, {[0044] re. discharge circuit (containing the OT and the BAF) are in fluid communication with each other and other systems of the process}
and an inlet for the oxidant. {[0044] re. a device to introduce ozone}
Gonzalez is silent to an inlet for oxidant (ozone), however, Gonzalez teaches ozone may be supplied to the reaction tank for aeration during biological treatment, thus this invention inherently contains an oxidant inlet from the taught, ozone supply. {[0044]}
Gonzalez modified by Conner is silent to comprising one or more BAF reactors (5) in parallel and/or in series, and one or more OT reactors (11) in parallel and/or in series, and wherein the last BAF reactor or last set of parallel BAF reactors has a fluid connection with the first OT reactor or first set of parallel OT reactors; however given the claimed language recites “one or more” referring to the OT and BAF reactors, it is unclear how these features could be in parallel or series configuration, when only one, in the claimed “one or more” is apparent. Thus, the examiner is interpreted this with its broadest reasonable interpretation, wherein, there is only one OT and BAF reactor. However, as proceeding limitations recite parallel and series, to further prosecution, if the Applicant had recited “two or more”, the examiner would have written something to the like of the following:
a feature in a claimed limitation may not be considered to have patentable weight if the limitation is simply a duplication of parts, wherein there is no new, unexpected result. In this instant application, the claimed feature of the treatment system existing in parallel or series is well known in the art as both treatment systems have advantages of less downtime through alternating usage (parallel), increased throughput with double the treatment capacity (parallel), or increased treatment requiring the solution to go through the system multiple times (series), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the system of Gonzalez modified by Conner to include additional OT and BAF reactors in series or parallel treatment. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”
Gonzalez modified by Conner fails to teach an outlet for the off-gas.
McGinness teaches an outlet for a bioreactor off-gas stream {[0086 and 0087] re. treated off gas is vented into the atmosphere or recirculated as an oxygen source from an aerobic bioreactor}.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OT reactor of Gonzalez modified by Conner with McGinness’ teachings of an outlet for the off-gas as McGinness teaches that off-gassing is pertinent to the treatment of various types of wastewater {McGinness, [0030]} and to further illustrate the analogy McGinness specifically treats fluid through biological adsorption with the addition oxygen, similar to Gonzalez modified by Conner. Adding McGinness’ off-gassing features to Gonzalez modified by Conner lowers the operational costs, as recycling is well-known, to save materials, while contributing to a more environmentally friendly system.
Regarding claim 36, Gonzalez teaches wherein the filter bed is a filter bed of active carbon granules. {[0028] re. biological reactor & [0032] re. adsorbent powdered activated carbon (PAC)}
Regarding claim 37, Gonzalez teaches wherein the OT reactor(s) is(are) provided with an outlet which is in fluid connection with the BAF(s) reactor(s) {[0044] re. inlet and discharge circuits connecting the biological treatment unit containing oxidation treatment and biological adsorbing} and equipped controlling means for adjusting the amount of the OT effluent 14 that is recirculated to the BAF reactor(s). {[0073] re. recirculating a fraction of sludge in the recirculation circuit. Note the "fraction" of sludge is variable, thus is adjustable}
Gonzalez fails to teach wherein the installation is equipped with one or more sensing devices for flow, oxygen, TOC, DOC, SUVA, pressure and/or ammonium, bromide and/or specifically targeted pollutants at the water inlet and/or outlet of the BAF and/or is equipped with level transmitters in the BAF.
Conner teaches wherein the installation is equipped with one or more censoring devices for flow, oxygen, TOC, DOC, SUVA, pressure and/or ammonium, bromide and/or specifically targeted pollutants at the water inlet and/or outlet of the BAF and/or is equipped with level transmitters in the BAF.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gonzalez with Conner’s teachings wherein the installation is equipped with one or more censoring devices for flow, oxygen, TOC, DOC, SUVA, pressure and/or ammonium, bromide and/or specifically targeted pollutants at the water inlet and/or outlet of the BAF and/or is equipped with level transmitters in the BAF as Conner and Gonzalez teach wastewater treatment process utilizing the same biological adsorption and oxidation treatment. Doing so would increase the control of the operational parameters in the system, as it Is well known in the art that the automation utilizing automatic, in-line sensors and controls {Conner, [0147]} saves the user time, while providing more precise and accurate results.
Regarding claim 38, Gonzalez teaches wherein OT involves ozone treatment, {[0027] re. ozone in ozonation step} and wherein the OT reactor(s) is(are) provided with an inlet for a gaseous ozone mixture. {[0044] re. device for the introduction of ozone into the reactor}
Gonzalez fails to teach wherein the outlet of the off-gas is in fluid connection to the inlet of oxygen into the BAF reactor(s).
McGinness teaches wherein the outlet of the off-gas is in fluid connection to the inlet of oxygen into the BAF reactor(s). {[0086] re. treated off gas is vented into the atmosphere or recirculated as an oxygen source for an aerobic bioreactor}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aeration tank of Gonzalez to include McGinness’ teachings wherein the outlet of the off-gas is in fluid connection to the inlet of oxygen into the BAF reactor(s) as McGinness similar to Gonzalez, teaches a process for treating contaminated fluid lowers the operational costs, as recycling is well-known, to save materials, while contributing to a more environmentally friendly system.
Regarding claim 39, Gonzalez fails to teach wherein the inlet of the one or more BAF reactors is connected to a wastewater treatment plant.
Conner teaches wherein the inlet of the one or more BAF reactors is connected to a wastewater treatment plant. {[0044] re. upstream wastewater treatment}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to precede the system of Gonzalez with Conner’s teachings of a water or wastewater purification process as serial treatment is well known in the art; and modifying Gonzalez to include an upstream wastewater treatment process, would improve the treatment by further removing contaminants, as some wastewater facilities must have their effluent fall below a certain discharge concentration threshold, and serial treatment with the system of Gonzalez would help meet those requirements. {Conner, [0044] re. mandated discharge levels}
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Meidl (US5302288A) is directed to purifying wastewater through aerobic biofiltration paired with oxidation treatment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights