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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 7/31/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 last limitation recites the term “wastewater” but the first limitation already recites the term “wastewater.” As such, it is unclear whether the two references are directed to the same or different element. For the purposes of examination it will be assumed the term in the last limitation recites “the wastewater.”
Claim 5 recites the flocculant is introduced in an amount depending on the specific case (i) or (ii). However, the description of the two cases is identical making it unclear as to the differences of the cases and how to know when one the situation is the first case or the other with its accompanying change in flocculant addition amount.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimori et al. (US 2009/0236275 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Nishimori teaches a wastewater treatment method, comprising a step 1 and a step 2, the step 1 preceding the step 2 and removing a given portion of a suspended solid in wastewater to thereby decrease a concentration of an outflowing suspended solid (elements 2 and 4), the step 2 treating, by a membrane activated sludge method (5), the wastewater which has been subjected to the step 1, wherein the concentration of the outflowing suspended solid in the step 1 is changed in accordance with a behavior of a parameter X in a predetermined period, and the parameter X is associated with properties of wastewater that flows in in the step 1 and/or sludge properties in the step 2 (Figs. 1 and 3-4; [0046]-[0059]).
Regarding claims 2-3, Nishimori teaches that a parameter, such as BOD, COD, or MLSS, can be monitored/determined and if it is above or below a specific value, the upstream process is changed as claimed to modify the concentration of the outflowing suspended solids ([0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 4, it is submitted that the means to accomplish the modification of the concentration of the outflowing suspended solids would include filtration, flocculation, and precipitation ([0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Nishimori teaches that a flocculant is added to the wastewater in step 1 ([0057]). As discussed above, it is unclear when something would be considered as case (i) or case (ii) but as Nishimori teaches at least some amount of flocculant being added, it meets the limitation of a first and/or second amount being added.
Regarding claim 6, Nishimori teaches that the flocculant can be an organic polymer flocculation agent ([0022]).
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.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimori et al. (US 2009/0236275 in IDS) in view of Kanno et al. (JP 2007-075754 in IDS).
Regarding claims 7-8, Nishimori teaches that microorganisms/microbial organisms are used in the membrane activated sludge treatment step but fails to teach that the microorganisms are added via a microbial preparation. Kanno teaches that a microorganisms can be cultured and made and then introduced into wastewater ([0012]-[0020]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a microbial preparation and add it to the wastewater as claimed in order to provide the needed microorganisms for the treatment in Nishimori.
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that Kanno appears to teach the flocculant and microbial preparation being added simultaneously ([0020]). However, as it is not explicitly stated, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to do so as it is merely an obvious change in the sequence of adding chemicals during the process (Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 10, Kanno teaches that the microbial preparation can include Pseudomonas bacteria [0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights