DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-11 are pending:
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
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 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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hildebrand (US 2018/0099888) in view of Levanon (US 2016/0251233) and further in view of Reid (US 2016/0075577).
Regarding claim 1, Hildebrand teaches a method for treating wastewater (nitrifying bacteria biomass to remove ammonia from wastewater; see ABS; nitrifying is a form of treating wastewater) in a treatment system (a sewage treatment system; see claim 1), comprising:
introducing influent wastewater into a lagoon (“influent into the lagoon”; see ¶166) and allowing the wastewater to remain within the lagoon for a period of time (“treatment lagoon…retention time for the wastewater”; see ¶167) to reduce biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) levels within the wastewater (retention time in lagoon will reduce BOD and TSS; see ¶167);
after the wastewater has sat for said period of time (i.e. retention time), transferring partially processed wastewater having reduced levels of BOD5 and TSS from the lagoon (“attached growth reactors are supplied wastewater from a treatment lagoon”; see ¶150) to a moving-bed nitrification reactor (the attached growth reactor; see ¶32; the attached growth reactor is a moving-bed reactor) containing...media (media; see ¶19);
aerating the wastewater within the moving-bed nitrification reactor by means of…bubble aeration (“each reactor 1, 2 includes an aeration system”; see ¶39; the aeration system generates bubbles);
allowing ammonia levels within the wastewater held within the moving-bed nitrification reactor to be reduced (“attached growth reactor which provides nitrification (ammonia removal)”; see ¶31) through aerobic, bacterial-based nitrification using nitrifying bacteria that have colonized the high-surface-area media (“moving media…provides new surface area on which nitrifying bacteria biomass can be established”; see ¶83); and
discharging product fluid from the moving-bed nitrification reactor, the product fluid comprising wastewater that has been processed to reduce BOD5, TSS (heterotrophic bacteria and retention time in SAGR will reduce BOD and TSS; see ¶27, ¶145 & ¶165) and ammonia levels to at or below predetermined maximum levels (“removal of the full amount of ammonia”; see ¶154).
Hildebrand does not explicitly teach (1) that the media is high-surface-area media providing about 2,000 square meters or more of surface area per cubic meter of media and (2) that the bubble aeration is fine bubble aeration.
In a related field of endeavor, Levanon teaches a mechanical biological filter (see Entire Abstract) comprising floating media bed having multiple beads configured to allow growth of nitrifying bacteria (see ¶16) said beads characterized as having a surface area per unit volume that ranges from 200m2/m3 to 5000m2/m3 (see ¶17).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 200 - 5000 m2/m3 overlaps the claimed range of ≥2000 m2/m3. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the media surface area of Hildebrand by selecting a high surface area media of 200-5000 m2/m3 as disclosed by Levanon because a high surface area provides the benefit of enabling a high reaction rate (Levanon, see ¶84).
In a related field of endeavor, Reid teaches a moving bed media flow equalization reactor (see Entire Abstract) wherein mixing and aeration can be accomplished by fine bubble diffusers (see ¶31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the operation of aerating of Hildebrand by operating the aerating to produce fine bubbles as disclosed by Reid because it is applying a known technique of utilizing fine bubbles to a known method of treating wastewater obviously resulting in achieving the predictable result of mixing and aeration (Reid, see ¶31) with an expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Regarding claim 2, Hildebrand, Levanon and Reid teach the method of claim 1, wherein processed wastewater is discharged from the treatment system (Hildebrand, “treated wastewater is removed from the reactors 1,2 via the effluent collector”; see ¶41) without clarifying or polishing the product fluid that has been discharged from the moving-bed nitrification reactor to remove solids (Hildebrand does not require clarifying or polishing after treatment in the reactors therefore the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 3, Hildebrand, Levanon and Reid teach the method of claim 1, wherein 1) the method is implemented without regulating the temperature of the wastewater within the moving-bed nitrification reactor (Hildebrand, heating is only needed in some embodiments, see ¶72; Hildebrand, ammonia level can be increased for increasing the activity of nitrifying bacteria, see ¶157; based on the teachings in ¶72, ¶157 Hildebrand teaches “without regulating temperature”), and 2) wherein the method is implemented during periods of time when ambient conditions cause the temperature of the wastewater in the moving-bed nitrification reactor to be 10 C or less (Hildebrand, “the cold weather periods of time, when water temperature may decrease towards or be lower than 4 degrees Celsius”; see ¶29; “improving ammonia removal from wastewater during a cold weather period”; see ¶13).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of < 4 degrees C completely encompasses the claimed range of < 1 degree C. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Hildebrand, Levanon and Reid teach the method of claim 1, further comprising treating the wastewater in the lagoon to facilitate reduction of BOD5 and/or TSS (Hildebrand, bacteria present in treatment lagoons provide further treatment; see ¶27 & ¶28).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hildebrand (US 2018/0099888) in view of Levanon (US 2016/0251233) in view of Reid (US 2016/0075577) and further in view of Teran (USPN 6,395,174)
Regarding claim 5, Hildebrand, Levanon and Reid teach the method of claim 4. Hildebrand further discloses that the attached growth reactors are supplied wastewater from a treatment lagoon or similar secondary treatment system (Hildebrand, see ¶150).
The combination of references does not teach wherein the wastewater in the lagoon is aerated.
In a related field of endeavor, Teran teaches a method for lagoon remediation (see Entire Abstract) comprising further treating the wastewater in the lagoon to facilitate reduction of BOD5 and/or TSS (“the wastewater lagoon is equipped with an aeration means”) (see C4/L58-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the operation of the lagoon of Hildebrand by treating using aeration as disclosed by Teran because it provides the benefit of enhancing bioremediation (Teran, see C8/L5-10 and C8/L37-40).
Regarding claim 6, Hildebrand, Levanon and Reid teach the method of claim 4.
Hildebrand further discloses that the attached growth reactors are supplied wastewater from a treatment lagoon or similar secondary treatment system (Hildebrand, see ¶150).
The combination of references does not teach wherein the wastewater in the lagoon is mixed.
In a related field of endeavor, Teran teaches a method for lagoon remediation (see Entire Abstract) comprising further treating the wastewater in the lagoon to facilitate reduction of BOD5 and/or TSS (“the wastewater lagoon is equipped with…mixing means”) (see C4/L58-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the operation of the lagoon of Hildebrand by treating using mixing as disclosed by Teran because it provides the benefit of enhancing bioremediation (Teran, see C8/L5-10 and C8/L37-40).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hildebrand (US 2018/0099888) in view of Levanon (US 2016/0251233) in view of Reid (US 2016/0075577) and further in view of Cretini (USPN 5,593,575),
Regarding claim 7, Hildebrand, Levanon and Reid teach the method of claim 4.
Hildebrand further discloses that the attached growth reactors are supplied wastewater from a treatment lagoon or similar secondary treatment system (Hildebrand, see ¶150).
The combination of references does not teach wherein the wastewater in the lagoon is covered to retard algae growth.
In a related field of endeavor, Cretini teaches a floating cover system (see Entire Abstract wherein the wastewater in the lagoon is covered to retard algae growth (“cover prevents direct sunlight penetration which prevents the growth of algae”; see ABS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pond in the method of Hildebrand by incorporating a step of providing a floating cover in the pond of the method of Cretini for preventing algae because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mitigate clogging problems and premature system failure due to algae growth as well as provide a cost effective way to prevent algae growth (Cretini, see C1/L9-35).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hildebrand (US 2018/0099888) in view of Levanon (US 2016/0251233) in view of Reid (US 2016/0075577) and further in view of Barnard (USPN 3,964,998),
Regarding claim 8, Hildebrand, Levanon and Reid teach the method of claim 1.
The combination of references does not teach further comprising transferring the product fluid from the moving-bed nitrification reactor to a denitrification reactor and allowing nitrate to be removed from the product fluid in the denitrification reactor via anaerobic, bacterial-based denitrification.
In a related field of endeavor, Barnard teaches a waste water treatment process (see Entire Abstract) comprising transferring product fluid from a nitrification reactor (“a second stage comprising a biological nitrification stage”; see C1/L15-25) to a denitrification reactor (“a third stage comprising a biological denitrification stage”; see C1/L15-25) and allowing nitrate to be removed from the product fluid in the denitrification reactor via anaerobic, bacterial-based denitrification (“in the form of biological denitrification”; see C8/L21-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nitrification reactor of Hildebrand by incorporating the denitrification downstream of the nitrification reactor as disclosed by Barnard because said denitrification process helps to further purify wastewater (Barnard, denitrification followed by nitrification, see Entire Abstract) by removing residual nitrate nitrogen (Barnard, see C21/L28-31 & C22/L15-20; Hildebrand, “ammonia to nitrate”, see ¶28).
Regarding claim 9, Hildebrand, Levanon, Reid and Barnard teach the method of claim 8, further comprising dosing carbon to the denitrification reactor to support the anaerobic bacteria therein (Barnard, “carbon source…to the third stage”, see C6/L34-36).
Regarding claim 10, Hildebrand, Levanon, Reid and Barnard teach method of claim 9, wherein carbon is dosed from a synthetic source (Barnard, “methanol”, see C21/L28-30).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hildebrand (US 2018/0099888) in view of Levanon (US 2016/0251233) in view of Reid (US 2016/0075577) in view of Barnard (USPN 3,964,998) and further in view of Stankewich (USPN 3,764,523).
Regarding claim 11, Hildebrand, Levanon, Reid and Barnard teach method of claim 9.
The combination of references does not teach wherein carbon is dosed by mixing a portion of influent wastewater with wastewater contained within the denitrification reactor.
In a related field of endeavor, Stankewich teaches a process for nitrification of BOD-containing water (see ABS) wherein carbon is dosed by mixing a portion of influent wastewater to a reactor (“a portion of the feed water to first aeration chamber 10 may be diverted from conduit 11 through conduit 54 as part or all of the secondary BODs supply”; see C12/L15-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the carbon source of Hildebrand (as modified by Barnard) with the influent carbon source of Stankewich because it is the simple substitution of one known carbon source means with another known influent carbon source means is obvious and will result in a suitable carbon source means for denitrification (Barnard, “other carbon sources”, see C13/L40-45) with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Nam Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-1342. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1778
Prosecution Insights