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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or
under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Foreign priority is claimed in the Instant Application; EFD is 08/25/2023
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claims 1 and 2 recites “is communicated with” is unclear. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “is in fluid communication with.”
(ii) Claim 1 recites “a bottom end of the device main body” (line 4) being communicated with the storage pool, whereas in claim 2 specifies inlet at the bottom end of a side wall (line 2) is unclear. Applicant is requested to clarify whether the fluid connection is: in the bottom wall, in the lower side wall; or merely associated with the lower region.
(iii) Claim 5 recites “the device main body is filled with quartz sand filler, and the quartz sand filler is filled with mixture filler comprising the agricultural waste filler, the denitrifying sludge and the quartz sand filler” which is structurally circular. A filler ordinarily cannot be “filled with” a mixture that includes itself. Applicant is requested to rewrite the phrase accordingly.
(iv) Claim 7, step S2 recites “filling the agricultural waste filler and the denitrifying sludge of the reaction part” which does not state what is filled or where the materials are placed. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “placing the agriculture-waste filler and denitrifying sludge in the reaction part.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 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 regard(s) as the invention.
(i) Claim 7 is written as an independent method claim but states: “according to the device according to claim 1.”
A method claim may recite use of an apparatus but this phrasing as written is unclear. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to: A method for removing nitrogen and phosphorus from aquaculture tail water using the device in claim 1, the method comprising:”
Alternatively, if intended to be formally dependent on claim 1, Applicant is requested to ensure compliance with 112(d) and clearly incorporate all limitations of claim 1.
(ii) Claim 7, step S1 recites “connecting the aquaculture tail water storage pool and the effluent collection pool”. This is considered indefinite because it can be interpreted with multiple meanings which could be read as directly connecting the two pools together. The intended meaning appears to be separately connecting: the storage pool to the device inlet and the device outlet to the collection pool. Applicant is requested to rewrite the phrase accordingly.
(iii) Claim 7, step S3 recites “overflows the reaction part” is unclear. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation by replacing “overflows the reaction part” with the precise hydraulic action shown in the specification and drawings.
(iv) Claim 8 recites “weak acid” which describes a type of acid, not necessarily pH range which makes it indefinite. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation by specifying an objective pH range.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Lee et al., (US 5,482,630, hereinafter as “Lee”) in view of Saliling et al., (Wood chips and wheat straw as alternative biofilter media for denitrification reactors treating aquaculture and other wastewaters with high nitrate, Aquaculture Engineering, 2007, 37, pp. 222-233, hereinafter as “Saliling”), Sharrer et al., (Modeling and mitigation of denitrification ‘woodchip’ bioreactor phosphorus releases during treatment of aquaculture wastewater, Ecological Engineering, 2016, 93, pp. 135-143, hereinafter as “Sharrer”), and Carlberg et. al., (US 6,447,681 B1, hereinafter as “Carlberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches and discloses a controlled denitrification system that treats water used to support aquatic life in an aquarium or aquaculture system and removes nitrate/ nitrogen (Abstract; col. 3, lines 39-49), comprising denitrification column 18 reactor vessel (device main body) (Fig. 1; col. 4 lines 51-60), and a bacterial bed located within denitrification column 18 (reaction part arranged in the device main body) (Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 8-12);
influent water 15 enters the bottom of denitrification column 18, and the reactor is connected to an aquaculture raceway from which water is pumped into the bases of the columns (a bottom end of the device main body is communicated with an aquaculture tail water storage pool) and withdraws water at the top through outlets 28, 30, 32, or 34, and drains the water from the column tops for return to the aquaculture system (a top side wall of the device main body) (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 46-49; col. 8, lines 9-24)
denitrifying microbial biomass (or anaerobic denitrifying sludge) contained in the reactor (the reaction part comprises a filler and denitrifying sludge contained in the device main body) (Fig. 1; col. 7, lines 52-55).
But Lee does not teach: (I) aquaculture tail water based on a filler is an agricultural-waste filler; (II) the reaction part comprises a filler is an agricultural-waste filler, and (III) that the reactor/device removes phosphorus in addition to nitrogen (a device for nitrogen and phosphorus removal); (IV) a top side wall of the device main body communicated with an effluent collection pool;
Regarding (I) and (II), Saliling teaches a 3.8 liter, packed-height upflow denitrification reactors treating synthetic wastewater, where reactors were packed with woodchips or wheat straw, and both materials supported biological denitrification and removed 99% of influent nitrate (Abstract). Saliling discloses woodchips and wheat straw as agricultural or forestry by-products usable as biofilter media (Abstract; p. 223, right column, lines 16-19). Saliling discloses the agricultural waste filler limitation.
Regarding (III), Sharrer teaches pilot-scale woodchip denitrification bioreactors treating aquaculture wastewater and reports consistent total phosphorus removal of 15-54% (Abstract).
Regarding (IV), Carlberg teaches routing treated aquaculture wastewater from biological treatment reactors into a downstream receiving channel and constructed-wetland pond for subsequent handling and treatment. The constructed wetland pond is equivalent to the effluent collection pool under the broadest reasonable interpretation because it is a downstream structure that receives effluent discharged from the biological treatment reactor.
Lee, Saliling and Sharrer, Carlberg are analogous arts because these references are in the same field of endeavor: biological denitrification of aquaculture water or wastewater using packed microbial reactors.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Lee’s bed bacterial support with Saliling’s woodchip or wheat straw packed medium to provide the feature “aquaculture tail water based on agricultural waste filler”, and “ the reaction part comprises agricultural waste filler” because Saliling’s medium is low cost agricultural by-product that are suitable packed biofilter media for supporting denitrifying bacteria in upflow reactors treating aquaculture wastewater (Saliling: p. 232, right column, Conclusion section, lines 1-5); it would have been further obvious to employ the modified reactor of Lee with the teachings of Sharrer to provide the feature “a device for nitrogen and phosphorus removal” because aquaculture wastewater woodchip bioreactors demonstrates to perform the same denitrification function while consistently removal total phosphorus (Sharrer: Abstract); it would have been further obvious to employ the modified reactor of Lee, in view of Saliling and Sharrer, with the teachings of Carlberg to provide the feature “a top side wall of the device main body communicated with an effluent collection pool” because the collection pool provides nutrient polishing and controlled handling of the discharged effluent (Carlberg: col. 10, lines 35-37).
In regard to claim 2, Lee as modified above, discloses influent water 15 enters the bottom or lower region of denitrification column 18 (wherein a bottom end of a side wall of the device main body is provided with a water inlet), wherein water from Lee’s aquaculture raceway is pumped into the bases of the denitrification columns (wherein the water inlet is communicated with the aquaculture tail water storage pool)( Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 46-49; col. 8, lines 9-24), using a controllable liquid pumping monitors flow with a flowmeter, uses a variable speed peristaltic pump 22 in the same denitrification system, and maintains a constant flow-rate setpoint by a PID control loop (through a constant-current peristaltic pump) (Lee: Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 52-60; col. 10, lines 30-34); top outlets 28, 30, 32, and 34 in denitrification column 18 (and a top end of the side wall of the device main body is provided with a water outlet), water drains from the tops of Lee’s columns for collection and return to the aquaculture system (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 46-49; col. 8, lines 9-24).
In regard to claim 3, Lee, in view of Saliling, discloses a perforated or open egg-crate louver- panels 26 fitted within column 18 are porous supporting members (a porous supporting plate is fixedly connected in the device main body) (Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 8-32). Saliling discloses woodchips or wheat straw packed in upflow reactor (Abstract), substituted for Lee’s bead layer retained by open louver panels (the agricultural waste filler is piled on the supporting plate) and the combination as applied above further discloses bacterial biomass developing on and supported by the woodchip or wheat straw media (the denitrifying sludge is piled on the agricultural waste filler).
In regard to claim 4, Lee discloses influent enters the bottom of column 18 and then flows upward through the louver-supported bacteria bed-layers, thereby placing at least the lower porous support and supported media above the lower inlet (an installation position of the supporting plate is higher than a position of the water inlet) (Fig. 2; col. col. 5, lines 8-45).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Lee in view of Saliling, Sharrer, and Carlberg as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Zheng et al., (A pilot-scale
deep bed denitrification filter for secondary effluent treatment using sodium acetate as
external carbon, Water Environment Research, 2019, 91, pp. 491-499, hereinafter as “Zheng”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee, in view of Saliling, Sharrer, and Carlberg, teaches biological denitrification of aquaculture water or wastewater using packed microbial reactors where the device main body comprises agricultural waste filler and denitrifying sludge as mentioned above but do not specifically teach the device main body is filled with quartz sand filler, wherein the device main body is filled with quartz sand filler, and the quartz sand filler is filled with mixture filler comprising the agricultural waste filler, the denitrifying sludge, and the quartz filter.
However, Zheng teaches and discloses pilot-scale quartz sand deep bed denitrification filter (the device main body is filled with quartz sand filler) to treat secondary effluent, with a high nitrate nitrogen concentration and low C/N ratio, from an urban municipal water resource recovery facility (Abstract).
Zheng is analogous art to Lee, Saliling, Sharrer, and Carlberg because it concerns anoxic biological denitrification in a quartz sand deep packed-media wastewater filter. It is reasonably pertinent to the problem of retaining denitrifying biomass, distributing wastewater through a packed bed, controlling dissolved oxygen, and preventing loss of suspended solids and media.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Zheng’s granular filter sand into the modified Lee’s packed reactor to provide the feature “ the device main body is filled with quartz sand filler, and the quartz sand filler is filled with mixture filler comprising the agricultural waste filler, the denitrifying sludge, and the quartz filter” because deep quartz sand bed provides good effect on the removal of dissolved organic matter, support nitrogen and COD removal performance, and enhance microbial denitrification (Zheng: Abstract, p. 499, Conclusion section, lines 1-13).
In regard to claim 6, although Zheng discloses pilot-scale quartz sand deep bed denitrification filter (the device main body is filled with quartz sand filler) to treat secondary effluent (Abstract), the position of quartz sand filler and mixed filler relative to the inlet and outlet as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to increase gravity-driven flow and treatment efficiency as evidenced by Suliman et al., (Effect of the inlet–outlet positions on the hydraulic performance of horizontal subsurface-flow wetlands constructed with heterogeneous porous media, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2006, 87, pp. 22-36; Abstract; p. 23, paragraph 5, lines 1-2; p. 34, Conclusion section, lines 1-17).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Lee in view of Saliling and Sharrer, further in view of Carlberg.
The device for nitrogen and phosphorus removal from aquaculture tail water based on agricultural waste filler is taught by Lee, in view of Saliling, Sharrer, and Carlberg, as set forth above (discussions about claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches a method for biologically treating aquaculture wastewater using a continuous-flow denitrification reactor connected to a recirculating aquaculture system, wherein aquaculture water is introduced into the reactor, passes upward through a denitrifying bacterial bed reactor and is discharged after treatment (Abstract; col. 3, lines 39-49; col. 8, lines 9-12).
Lee, in view of Saliling, Sharrer, and Carlberg, discloses a method for nitrogen and phosphorus removal from aquaculture tail water based on agricultural waste filler by using the device according to claim 1, comprising:
S1, connecting aquaculture raceway or source to the reactor inlet and connecting the upper reactor discharge to the receiving or return portion of the aquaculture system (connecting the aquaculture tail water storage pool) (col. 8 lines 16-24);
S2, a denitrification reactor containing denitrifying microorganisms (filling the filler and the denitrifying sludge of the reaction part (Fig. 1; col. 7, lines 52-55)
S3, pumping aquaculture water into the base of denitrification column and water flows upward through the bacterial reaction bed and is withdrawn from the upper outlets (introducing the aquaculture tail water into the device main body, wherein the aquaculture tail water overflows the reaction part) (col. 8, lines 14-24);
S4, controls flow rate and process residence time and expressly operates in fixed-time batch mode and denitrifying under controlled operating conditions (setting appropriate reaction conditions to make the aquaculture tail water stay in the device main body for a period of time) (col. 4, lines 29-34; col. 9, lines 9-25; col. 10, lines 6-59);
S5, discharging treated effluent through the reactor outlet (col. 5 lines 46-49)
But Lee does not teach: (I) the filler is an agricultural-waste filler; (II) the method removes phosphorus in addition to nitrogen; (III) S1, the downstream effluent collection pool; (IV) S2, the filler is an agricultural-waste filler; (V) S5, discharging into the effluent collection pool; (VI) S6, similar limitations not taught from (I)-(V) above.
Regarding (I), (IV), (VI) Saliling discloses woodchips and wheat straw as agricultural or forestry by-products usable as biofilter media (Abstract; p. 223, right column, lines 16-19). Saliling discloses the agricultural waste filler limitation.
Regarding (II), (VI) Sharrer teaches pilot-scale woodchip denitrification bioreactors treating aquaculture wastewater and reports consistent total phosphorus removal of 15-54% (Abstract).
Regarding (III), (V), (VI) Carlberg teaches routing treated aquaculture wastewater from biological treatment reactors into a downstream receiving channel and constructed-wetland pond for subsequent handling and treatment (Abstract; col. 14, lines 35- 45). The constructed wetland pond is equivalent to the effluent collection pool under the broadest reasonable interpretation because it is a downstream structure that receives effluent discharged from the biological treatment reactor.
Lee, Saliling and Sharrer, Carlberg are analogous arts because these references are in the same field of endeavor: biological denitrification of aquaculture water or wastewater using packed microbial reactors.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Lee’s bed bacterial support with Saliling’s woodchip or wheat straw packed medium to provide the feature “aquaculture tail water based on agricultural waste filler”, and “ S2, filling the agricultural waste filler” because Saliling’s medium is low cost agricultural by-product that are suitable packed biofilter media for supporting denitrifying bacteria in upflow reactors treating aquaculture wastewater (Saliling: p. 232, right column, Conclusion section, lines 1-5); it would have been further obvious to employ the modified reactor of Lee with the teachings of Sharrer to provide the feature “a method for nitrogen and phosphorus removal” because aquaculture wastewater woodchip bioreactors demonstrates to perform the same denitrification function while consistently removal total phosphorus (Sharrer: Abstract); it would have been further obvious to employ the modified reactor of Lee, in view of Saliling and Sharrer, with the teachings of Carlberg to provide the feature “S1, the downstream… effluent collection pool” and “ S5, discharging… into the effluent collection pool because the collection pool provides nutrient polishing and controlled handling of the discharged effluent (Carlberg: col. 10, lines 35-37; col. 14, lines 35-45).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Lee in view of Saliling and Sharrer, Carlberg as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Qu et al., (Effects of low-light stress on aquacultural water quality and disease resistance in Nile tilapia, PLOS ONE, 2022, 17(5): e0268114, pp. 1-10, hereinafter as “Qu”).
Regarding claim 8, Lee, in view of Saliling, Sharrer and Carlberg, discloses monitors and controls temperature as a water-treatment parameter; standard biological denitrification processes, optimal temperatures for denitrifying bacteria are generally in the mesophilic range of 20–30 °C as evidenced by Lu et al., (Microbial ecology of denitrification in biological wastewater treatment, Water Research, 2014, 64, pp. 237-254; p. 245, left column, 2.3.2. pH and temperature, lines 1-3) (during reaction, a reaction temperature is 20±2oC). Lee discloses sparging is activated when DO exceeds 1.5 mg/L and continue until DO falls below 0.7 mg/L, thereby expressly operating within a range below 1 mg/L (col. 10, lines 37-45). Lee discloses monitoring effluent pH and adjust reactor operations in response to pH; and reports pH during biological denitrification but does not teach a light intensity is 355±31 Lux.
However, Qu teaches tests aquaculture-water illumination at 0,100, and 500 lux using 500 lux as the normal light control (Abstract). Qu report that light intensity affects pH, DO, nitrite total phosphorus and bacterial population in aquaculture water (Abstract). Qu expressly tested 100-500 lux intervals (0, 100, 500) which encompass the claimed invention 324-386 lux (Abstract).
Qu is reasonably pertinent analogous art to Lee, Saliling, Sharrer and Carlberg because it addresses management of aquaculture water under differing illumination and expressly measures the effects of light on DO, pH, nitrite, total phosphorus.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an intermediate illumination within Qu’s finite tested interval into the modified Lee’s packed reactor because illumination affects the same aquaculture-water parameters controlled by the claimed process, including DO, pH, nitrogen species, phosphorus, and bacterial populations and adjusting it to the claimed interval obtains an appropriate balance of water-quality conditions to promote enhanced nitrogen and phosphorus removal efficiency (Qu: p. 8, 5. Conclusion, lines 1-12)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Lee in view of Saliling, Sharrer and Carlberg, as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Lepine et al., (Optimizing Hydraulic Retention Times in Denitrifying Woodchip Bioreactors Treating Recirculating Aquaculture System Wastewater, Journal of Environmental Quality, 2016, 45, pp. 813–821, hereinafter as “Lepine”).
Regarding claim 9, Lee, in view of Saliling, Sharrer and Carlberg, teaches biological denitrification of aquaculture water or wastewater using packed microbial reactors but do not specifically a reaction residence time of the aquaculture tail water in the device main body is 30-35 h.
However, Lepine teaches denitrifying woodchip bioreactors treating recirculating-aquaculture-system wastewater and investigates hydraulic retention time as process-design variable (Abstract). Lepine discloses a design hydraulic-retention time of approximately 33 hrs for modeled nitrogen removal objective (p. 819, left column, lines 4-6), falling within the claimed 30-35-hour range.
Lepine is analogous art to Lee, Saliling, Sharrer, and Carlberg because it concerns with denitrifying woodchip bioreactor treating recirculating-aquaculture-system wastewater. It directly addresses the claimed process variable-hydraulic resident time.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a residence time taught by Lepine into the modified Lee’s packed reactor because the residence time interval of 33 hr is an appropriate design value for a desired removal efficiency (Lepine: p. 819, left column, lines 4-6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any 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 Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights