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 .
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the fluid column of bioreactor" and “the fluid column in the biomass separator” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, no clear definition of fluid column is made. For the purpose of examination fluid column refers to height of fluid when it enters different parts of the system.
Claim 26 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. In claim 26, claim recites a separation unit, in the specification applicant does not clarify what comprises a separation unit. For the purpose of examination, its biomass separator of claim 16
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 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) 16, 18-20, 24-27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pacheco-Ruiz et al. (WO 2021165541 A1, hereinafter Pacheco).
Regarding to claim 16, Pacheco teaches a process of microbiologically treating an aqueous liquid comprising biodegradable substrate in an installation comprising (i) a bioreactor containing a biomass sludge (Fig 1, 1 and abstract) and (ii) a biomass separator (Fig 1, 2) that is separated from the bioreactor and that comprises two or more inclined plate settlers that are stacked on top of each other, said process comprising (Figure 7, it shows multiple incline plates stacked on top of each other):
introducing the aqueous liquid comprising biodegradable substrate into the bioreactor (Page 7 lines 23-30 and page 9 lines 1-5); transferring treated fluid that comprises biomass from the upper part of the bioreactor through an inlet for a stream comprising treated liquid to the upper part of the biomass separator (Fig 1, 4); separating the treated fluid into a liquid phase having a reduced biomass content and a fluid phase enriched in biomass in the two or more inclined plate settlers (Fig 7 ), said two or more inclined plate settlers being located below the inlet for a stream comprising treated liquid(Fig 7); removing liquid phase having a reduced biomass content from the two or more inclined plate settlers; and transferring at least a part of the fluid phase enriched in biomass from the lower part of the biomass separator to the bioreactor (Fig 2, 29 8 37);
Regarding projected surface area ratio and footprint area, examiner assumes the figure it drawn to scale. Pacheco teaches projected surface area ratio and footprint area. By having more than 20 inline plates settlers in separation chamber that overlap each other (see in Fig 7). In applicant specification’s applicant refers to having “at least 2 plates and preferably at least 4 plates” (Page 10 line 10; Page 14 lines 30-35), therefore the shown plate settles in figure 7 meet the requirement. If shown plates do not teach the claimed ratio; it would be obvious to add more plates underneath or in addition to reach the claimed ratio (See MPEP
PNG
media_image1.png
540
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2144.04.VI.B)
PNG
media_image2.png
444
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 18, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, wherein the volume of the biomass separator is at least 5 times smaller than the volume of the bioreactor (Fig 1, 2).
Regarding to claim 19, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, but Pacheco fails to explicitly teaches wherein the height of the fluid column in the bioreactor and the height of the fluid column in the biomass separator differ by not more than 5%. However, Pacheco Figure 2 shows fluid enters into separator 2 from inlet 35 which falls in the range of the differing height, if shown that doesn’t meet this limitation, it well understood the placement of the fluid inlet is design decision that one of ordinary skill in art would do in order to not clog up the inlet with
PNG
media_image3.png
536
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
solids.
Regarding to claim 20, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, but Pacheco fails to explicitly teach wherein the biomass separator has a height : footprint area ratio of more than 1 m-1. However, changing size or proportion of a biomass separator is prima facie obvious, one of ordinary skill would be capable change size a of give item in a system (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Regarding to claim 24, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, wherein the aqueous liquid comprising biodegradable substrate is introduced into the lower part of the bioreactor (Fig 1, 15).
Regarding to claim 25, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, wherein the biomass separator comprises a conditioning chamber that is located underneath the two or more inclined plate settlers(Fig 1, 29), wherein the aqueous liquid comprising biodegradable substrate is introduced into said conditioning chamber where it is mixed with the fluid phase enriched in biomass (Fig 1, 25), following which the mixture of aqueous liquid and fluid phase is transferred to the lower part of the bioreactor (Fig 1, 15, Page 28-29 lines 24-36 and 0-9).
Regarding to claim 26, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, wherein part of the fluid phase enriched in biomass that is obtained from the separation units is returned to the bioreactor and another part is discarded (Fig 1, 2 29 15).
Regarding to claim 27, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, wherein both the bioreactor and the biomass separator comprise a headspace that is filled with biogas, wherein the headspace of the bioreactor and the headspace of the biomass separator are connected by a gas conduct, and wherein the process comprises removing biogas from the headspace of the bioreactor or from the headspace of the biomass separator (Fig 1, 2 10 91, Page 6 line 16-27).
Regarding to claim 29, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, wherein the bioreactor and the biomass separator are operated under anaerobic conditions.(Page 13 line 25-30 and page 14 lines 0-5)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacheco as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sury et al. (CA 2711136 C, hereinafter Sury).
Regarding to claim 17, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, but Pacheco fails to teach wherein the biomass separator is operated to generate the liquid phase having a reduced biomass content at a flow velocity of at least 20 m3/hour/m2 , the flow velocity being calculated by dividing the flow rate of the liquid phase having a reduced biomass content by the footprint area of the biomass separator. However, Sury teaches scaling up the volumetric flow rate to be more viable commercial flow rates (¶[0020]), Pacheco and Sury are analogues to the claim inventions because both are in the same field of incline plate settlers separations. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would use the teaching of Sury to optimize the flow rate of Pacheco separation method for larger apparatus.
Claim(s) 21 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacheco as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Vellinga et al. (WO 2010036107 A1, hereinafter Vellinga).
Regarding to claim 21, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, but Pacheco fails to teach wherein the inclined plate elements of the two or more inclined plate settlers consist of rectangular plates and wherein Psai is calculated as follows:
P
s
a
i
=
l
i
×
w
i
×
cos
(
∅
i
)
However, Vellinga discloses the claimed Psai value, assuming the separator is 70% filled:
PSA = (8 x (200 x cos(58) x W)
= 848W
A = L x W
PSAR = PSA/A
=848 W/ (L x W)
=848/L
= 848/200
= 4.24, which falls to the claimed limitations. Pacheco and Vellinga are analogues to the claim inventions because both are in the same field of incline plate settlers separations. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would do a simple substitution of Vellinga separator with Pacheco separator. (See MPEP 2143(I)(B))
PNG
media_image4.png
628
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 28, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, but Pacheco fails to teach wherein a tangential downward flow is realised in the upper part of the biomass separator. However Vellinga teaches teach wherein a tangential downward flow is realised in the upper part of the biomass separator (Vellinga Fig 2) Pacheco and Vellinga are analogues to the claim inventions because both are in the same field of incline plate settlers separations. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would do a simple substitution of Vellinga separator for Pacheco separator. (See MPEP 2143(I)(B))
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacheco as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kompala (US 20190321756 A1).
Regarding to claim 22, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, but Pacheco fails to teach wherein the inclined plate elements of the two or more inclined plate settlers consist of open-top cones that are stacked onto each other. However, Kompala teaches wherein the inclined plate elements of the two or more inclined plate settlers consist of open-top cones that are stacked onto each other (Fig 1). Pacheco and Kompala are analogues to the claim inventions because both are in the same field of incline plate settlers separations. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would do a simple substitution of Kompala separator for Pacheco separator. (See MPEP 2143(I)(B))
PNG
media_image5.png
870
362
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 23, Pacheco teaches the process according to claim 16, wherein the inclined plate elements in the two or more inclined plate settlers comprise: at least two concentric enclosures including an outermost enclosure and an innermost enclosure and defining at least one concentric cavity; one or more spiral-shaped channels formed in the at least one concentric cavity (Fig 17 540); a fluid inlet for receiving fluid, located in the lower part of the one or more spiral-shaped channels (Fig 17, 564); a solids outlet, for discharging solids comprised in the fluid, located in a lower part of the separation device (Fig 17 553B); and a liquid outlet, for discharging liquid comprised in the fluid, located in the upper part of the one or more spiral shaped channels (Fig 17 570).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zheng (CN 108249689 A) teaches method claim 16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
