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 . 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 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/721,670 application filed on June 19, 2024. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-9 and 12-18 are examined, on the merits, in this Office action. The examined claims are directed to an apparatus.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant elected Group I, claims 1-9 and 12-18 and timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 21, 2026.
Answer (Response) to Arguments
The election traversal is on the grounds that i) claims 10 and 11 of Groups II and III both depend on claim 1 and should be included in Group I, and ii) the cited reference does not disclose or fairly teach the common subject matter between claims 1, 10 and 11.
Regarding issue i), claims 1, 10 and 11 are interpreted as independent, and the restriction was based on unity of invention principles, where claim 1 constitutes the common subject matter. Although claims 10 and 11 relate to claim 1, for restriction purposes they do not depend on claim 1 since they are apparatus and product claims, whereas claim 1 is a method claim (A claim may contain a reference to another claim even if it is not a dependent claim as defined in PCT Rule 6.4. One example of this is a claim referring to a claim of a different category (for example, "Apparatus for carrying out the process of Claim 1 ...," or "Process for the manufacture of the product of Claim 1 ..."). Similarly, a claim to one part referring to another cooperating part, for example, "plug for cooperation with the socket of Claim 1 ...") is not a dependent claim). MPEP §1850 II.
Regarding item ii), Urushibara et al. (JPS60153996) is also employed in this Office action where Examiner further explains how that reference discloses or suggests the elements of claim 1.
In any case, the non-elected claims are eligible for rejoinder upon an allowance of the examined claims, if such claims are rendered commensurate in scope.
Therefore, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/19/2024. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-9 and 12-18 are objected to because of the following informality: Claim 1 recites: “. . .values indicative of sludge volume index . . .” It appears the indefinite article may be missing before ‘sludge.’
Claims 2-9 and 12-18 depend on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 6-8 and 13-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claims 4, 13 and 14, the meaning of “an online in-situ settling experiment in an online in-situ analysis equipment” is unclear.
Claims 6-8 and 15-18 recite the following: "said monitoring of biosludge quality comprises monitoring whether the parameter indicative of settled turbidity and the parameter indicative of settling speed stay below...," “in the event said parameter indicative of settled turbidity or the parameter indicative of settling speed . . .” and “determining limits or an operating window for the parameter indicative of settled turbidity and the parameter indicative of settling speed . . .” However, referencing "the parameter" and “said parameter” lacks antecedent basis because independent Claim 1 establishes these elements as plural sets ("a first set of parameter values... and a second set of parameter values").
The language “determining limits or an operating window for the parameter indicative of settled turbidity and the parameter indicative of settling speed on the basis of a target range of the sludge volume index” in claims 6 and 15-18 is unclear. Also claims 1-4 do not mention “determining limits or sludge volume index target ranges” so the later reference alluding to this concept is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Claims 1-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. That is, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (Mental Process / Mathematical Relationship) without significantly more. Based upon an analysis with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-9 and 12-18 do not recite something significantly different than a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites three manipulative steps: "determining... parameter values," "correlating... sets with respective values," and "monitoring... on the basis of the correlating step." This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because none of claims 2-9 or 12-18 add a meaningful limitation to the method since they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
That is, the dependent claims (claims 2-9 and 12-18) are also abstract because none of them appear to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and appear to only recite methods of essentially fine tuning the unstated mathematical relationship or calculations using additional known mathematical techniques (indexes, limits, controlling ratios, and target ranges), the potential sources of the wastewater, the notion of performing the analysis online, and the vague notion of controlling process conditions and dosages.
A patent-eligible process must either be "tied to a particular machine or apparatus" or transformed into a different state or thing, (i.e., the "machine-or-transformation test"). DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1255 (Dec. 2014). However, satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is not always sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, because not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an "inventive concept." Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1301 (2012).
"If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is non-statutory." Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In that light, the above-noted claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Urushibara et al. (JPS60153996, Urushibara)(IDS of 06-19-2024, where the below referenced English machine translation is of record).
Note that these are method claims. The patentability analysis considers the alternate concepts of the various potential embodiments in a particular reference. In the analysis below, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation necessarily performs a manipulative step or the method claimed, then Examiner will consider the particular manipulative step to be disclosed by the prior art device. That is, when the prior art device is the same as a device described in Applicant’s specification for carrying out the claimed method, one may assume that the device will inherently perform the claimed process. MPEP §2112.02.
Regarding claims 1-5, 9 and 12-14, Urushibara discloses or suggests a method for monitoring biosludge quality in a wastewater process (Abstract, p. 4 of 18, where activated sludge is a biosludge), comprising:
determining in an in-situ analysis a first set of parameter values indicative of settled turbidity (pp. 4 & 7, 8 of 18 in [0001]; settling tube in figs. 2 & 5, where a settling test is performed and turbidity is recorded; turbidity detection sensor 52 is depicted in fig. 2; p. 8: “By continuously detecting turbidity and recording the data . . .”) and a second set of parameter values indicative of settling speed of wastewater process samples over a period of time (pp. 4 & 7, 8 of 18 in [0001]; settling tube in fig. 2, where a settling test is performed and turbidity is recorded; p.. 7: “the ratio of the sludge volume after 80 minutes of sedimentation to the initial sludge volume. . .are sent. . .”);
correlating the first and second sets with respective values indicative of sludge volume index (Fig. 4 show a direct correlation between turbidity values and sludge volume index (SVI) values, while a correlation between settling speed and SVI is mentioned on p. 11: “. . .SVI is small, and as shown in Figure 6, the settling velocity SV is large, so the sludge concentration effect in the final sedimentation tank d is promoted . . .”; also see figs 5A/B; note that any comparison is alludes to or implies a correlation; also, the correlation of SVl/settling speed is evident from the combined figs. 5A/B, where fig. 5A shows a settling test with an SVI value of 130 ml/g and a high settling speed, while fig. 5B shows a settling test with SVI value of 220 ml/g; p 9: “As shown in Figures 6(A) and (B), there is a certain degree of correspondence between the turbidity decrease pattern and the sedimentation pattern; p 10: “the turbidity of the upper water is a factor that is greatly related to the properties of the sludge and its settling characteristics, and the present invention takes this turbidity into account when controlling the operation); and
monitoring the biosludge quality on the basis of the correlating step (Abstract, where measuring turbidity and settling speed is in effect or impliedly monitoring the biosludge quality; also “good treated water” is noted on p. 4).
In the alternative, Urushibara discloses the claimed invention, except for correlating the first and second sets with respective values indicative of sludge volume index.
However, at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to compare and to further correlate the first and second sets with respective values indicative of sludge volume index (SVI) to garner a better sense of and to facilitate more effective and improved control of the quality of the biosludge.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: The first set of parameter values indicative of settled turbidity are indexed values, such as values of an unsettled floc index (Abstract, pp. 4, 16); Claim 3: The wastewater process samples are taken from an outlet stream of biological treatment of the wastewater or from an inlet stream of a secondary sedimentation of the wastewater (p. 16, fig. 2); Claims 4, 13 and 14: The in-situ analysis comprises an online in-situ settling experiment in an online in-situ analysis equipment (claim 1 and 3 analyses); Claim 5: The method comprising:
providing a sampling water stream from a sampling point downstream of an aeration tank in a wastewater stream to the analysis equipment (p. 4; alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to collect samples from any suitable location); Claim 9: The method comprising controlling the biosludge quality with at least one of the following:
- controlling a ratio of return sludge flow based on said monitoring (p. 4: the flow rate of returned sludge sent from the final sedimentation tank to the aeration tank and the flow rate of wastewater entering the aeration tank are controlled, where the ratio is based on the flow rate; Abstract, p 12, where control of the pumps P1, P2 implies control of return sludge);
- controlling process conditions of the biological treatment based on said monitoring (p. 8);
- controlling treatment chemical(s) dose to secondary sedimentation based on said monitoring (implied in claim 1 analysis); and Claim 12: The wastewater process samples are taken from an outlet stream of biological treatment of the wastewater or from an inlet stream of a secondary sedimentation of the wastewater (claim 5 analysis).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 6-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urushibara et al. (JPS60153996), as applied to claims 1-5.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 15-18, Urushibara discloses or suggests the method of claim 1, except comprising:
determining limits or an operating window for the parameter indicative of settled turbidity and the parameter indicative of settling speed on the basis of a target range of the sludge volume index.
Fig. 8 shows operating limits for turbidity (TU1 and TU2) and related control criteria (p. 11). Figures 5(A) and (B) are graphs showing the change in interface position Hi and supernatant water turbidity TU with respect to sedimentation time, respectively (p. 9). As shown in Figures 6(A) and (B), there is a certain degree of correspondence between the turbidity decrease pattern and the sedimentation pattern (Id.).
Given the monitored turbidity data, when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine limits or an operating window for each parameter indicative of settled turbidity and the parameter indicative of settling speed on the basis of a target range of the sludge volume index where such limits or operating window would provide a better understanding and control for achieving a desired biosludge quality.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 7: Said monitoring of biosludge quality comprises monitoring whether the parameter indicative of settled turbidity and the parameter indicative of settling speed stay below the determined limits or within the operating window (claim 6 analysis; also see p 12: “the residence time of the final sedimentation tank is controlled to keep the turbidity of the effluent from the final sedimentation tank λ low, that is, to suppress the flow of sludge into the effluent. Furthermore, since the sewage inflow pump P1 is also controlled in a way that takes TUsv t into account, more appropriate operation control can be achieved); Claim 8: The method comprises, in the event said parameter indicative of settled turbidity or the parameter indicative of settling speed does not stay below the determined limit(s) or within the operating window:
- alerting an operator; and/or
- providing an operator with instructions; and/or
- providing a direct control signal to control the wastewater process (claim 6 analysis, where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention been obvious to either alert an operator, provide instructions or send a control signal to control the process); and Claims 15-18: The method comprises:
determining limits or an operating window for the parameter indicative of settled turbidity and the parameter indicative of settling speed on the basis of a target range of the sludge volume index.
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.
