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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A SYSTEM AND PROCESS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT HAVING A MABR TANK, MODULE AND AERATION UNIT
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 appears to recite redundant material already mentioned in claim 16 to which claim 18 depends. The material includes the discussion around discharging the sludge during the OFF periods. Examiner requests clarification on this matter.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 15, 22, 29, 32 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Houweling (US20210171375A1).
Claim 1: Houweling discloses a multi-stage activated sludge system for biological wastewater treatment having improved sludge settling properties (Fig. 1), the activated sludge system comprising an MABR tank (38) comprising an MABR module (40), an MABR tank aeration unit (48/64) configured for periodically aerating mixed liquor within the MABR tank (Fig. 1; paragraphs 9, 14, 21), and an outlet (one of 46 or 47) from the MABR tank configured for selectively discharging partially settled sludge from the MABR tank thus selecting for faster settling sludge (Fig. 1; paragraph 14 or 17).
Claim 6: Houweling further discloses a solid-liquid separator (see paragraph 14; note 26 and/or 58) for discharging the partially settled sludge discharged from the MABR tank as waste activated sludge (paragraph 12).
Claim 9: Houweling further discloses that the water from the solid-liquid separator is returned to a mixing tank (44) upstream of the MABR tank and wherein return activated sludge (RAS) and wastewater to be treated are also fed to said mixing tank (44) upstream of the MABR tank (Fig. 1, Examiner noting return line at bottom of Figure which will return partial amounts of water/RAS to the tank 44).
Claim 15: Houweling discloses a method for biological wastewater treatment (paragraph 9) comprising introducing a mixed liquor into a MABR tank (Fig. 1, note 38); periodically aerating the mixed liquor within said MABR tank via said MABR tank aeration unit (Fig. 1, note 48); periodically discharging partially settled sludge from said MABR tank as waste activated sludge (WAS) thus gradually selecting for a faster settling sludge over time (Fig. 1, note parargaphs14 and 20; Examiner also noting that WAS can be routed into the MABR tank by way of the recycle loop at the bottom of Figure 1, thereby incorporated some WAS into the MABR tank that can periodically be discharged).
Claim 22: Houweling discloses a system for biological wastewater treatment (Fig. 1) with improved sludge settling properties, the system comprising an MABR tank (38) comprising at least one MABR module (40) and a first aeration system (48/64); a mixing tank (44) upstream of said MABR tank; an aerated tank (20) downstream of said MABR tank, with a second aeration system (22); and a secondary clarifier (26) downstream of the aerated tank (Fig. 1); wherein a waste activated sludge stream from the secondary clarifier is discharged through a solids classifier (50, see paragraphs 18-19), returning a stream with faster-settling solids to the mixing tank (Fig. 1, note return of 52 to 44) and discharging a stream with slower-settling solids from the system (paragraphs 14 and 17); and wherein wastewater is fed to the mixing tank and return activated sludge from the secondary clarifier is returned to the mixing tank (Fig. 1, Examiner notes the fluid connection between 44 and 20/26/58).
Claim 29: Houweling further discloses a control unit configured to perform any one or a combination of introducing air intermittently or periodically into mixed liquor within said MABR tank through said first aeration system (see paragraphs 14 and 20); and controlling operation of said second aeration system, maintaining dissolved oxygen concentration of less than 1.0 mg/1 in said aerated tank; and controlling the operation of said solids classifier to thereby maintain a solids concentration suspended in said mixing tank.
Claim 32: Houweling discloses a method for improving the sludge settling properties in an activated sludge system (Fig. 1) comprising an MABR tank (38) including at least one MABR module (40), a mixing tank (44) upstream of the MABR tank, an aerated tank (20) downstream of the MABR tank and a secondary clarifier (26) downstream of the aerated tank, wherein the MABR tank comprises a first aeration system (48) and the aerated tank comprises a second aeration system (22), the method comprising discharging waste activated sludge from the secondary clarifier through a solids classifier (50, see paragraphs 18-19); returning a stream with faster-settling solids from the bottom of the solids classifier to the mixing tank (Fig. 1, note return of 52 to 44); and discharging a stream with slower settling solids from the top of the solids classifier as waste activated sludge (Fig. 1, 54).
Claim 35: Houweling further discloses aerating said MABR tank intermittently or periodically through the first aeration system MABR tank aeration unit (see paragraphs 14 and 20).
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) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houweling (US20210171375A1) in view of Maga (US 7,439,054).
Claim 2: Houweling further discloses that the MABR tank aeration unit is configured to be periodically switched between one or more ON periods and one or more OFF periods (paragraphs 14 and 20) but is not explicit about discharging material from the tank during at least one of the one or more OFF periods. However, Maga teaches a wastewater treatment system whose aerated tank is controlled to allow the discharging of material from the tank during at least one of the one or more OFF periods of the aeration unit (Fig. 1, see col. 4, lines 50-64). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to discharge material during and OFF period so as to allow a desired settling to occur and/or discharge the desired consistency of sludge downstream.
Claim 16: Houweling further discloses that said periodically aerating the mixed liquor within the MABR tank via the MABR tank aeration unit comprises periodically switching the MABR aeration unit between one or more ON periods and one or more OFF periods (paragraphs 14 and 20) but is not explicit about discharging the partially settled sludge from the MABR tank during at least one of the one or more OFF periods. However, Maga teaches a wastewater treatment system whose aerated tank is controlled to allow the discharging of material from the tank during at least one of the one or more OFF periods of the aeration unit (Fig. 1, see col. 4, lines 50-64). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to discharge material during and OFF period so as to allow a desired settling to occur and/or discharge the desired consistency of sludge downstream.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houweling (US20210171375A1) in view of Maga (US 7,439,054) and in further view of Cote (US20170088449A1).
Claim 18: Houweling further discloses introducing air intermittently or periodically into the mixed liquor within said MABR tank through said MABR tank aeration unit during the one or more ON periods (paragraphs 14 and 20) but is not explicit about discharging the partially settled sludge from the MABR tank during at least one of the one or more OFF periods. However, Maga teaches a wastewater treatment system whose aerated tank is controlled to allow the discharging of material from the tank during at least one of the one or more OFF periods of the aeration unit (Fig. 1, see col. 4, lines 50-64). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to discharge material during and OFF period so as to allow a desired settling to occur and/or discharge the desired consistency of sludge downstream. Houweling is not explicit about maintaining DO concentration in an activated sludge aeration tank below 1 mg/1. However, Cote teaches a wastewater treatment system using MABR in which DO levels in said activated sludge aeration tank were maintained below 1 mg/1 (see paragraphs 130-132) which, as incorporated into Houweling would be downstream of the MABR tank. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize Cote’s DO concentrations if only to mimic a successful example level in wastewater treatment.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houweling (US20210171375A1).
Claim 11: Houweling further discloses that said MABR tank outlet for partially settled mixed liquor is positioned at a location which appears above 20% of the height of the MABR tank and below 50% of the height of the MABR tank measured from bottom of the MABR tank (Fig. 1); however, while no specific dimensioning is expressed, such omission is immaterial as it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the outlet at a particular height, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 12 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houweling (US20210171375A1) in view of Schechter (US20220098070A1).
Claim 12: Houweling discloses the previous limitations. Houweling is not explicit about said MABR tank outlet comprises two or more outlets located at different heights along the MABR tank, each of the two or more outlets being configured for selectively discharging the partially settled sludge. However, Schechter teaches a MABR tank having two or more outlets located at different heights (108/112) along the MABR tank for selectively discharging the partially settled sludge (Fig. 1, paragraph 59). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize multiple outlets in order to select thicker or more concentrated sludge, thusly requiring less dewatering.
Claim 19: Houweling discloses the previous limitations. Houweling is not explicit about increasing the solids concentration of the partially settled mixed liquor discharged as WAS within a solid-liquid separator; recirculating clarified water from the solid-liquid separator to the activated sludge system; and discharging the WAS with increased solids concentration from the solid-liquid separator. However, Schechter increasing the solids concentration of the partially settled mixed liquor discharged as WAS within a solid-liquid separator (paragraph 60); recirculating clarified water from the solid-liquid separator to the activated sludge system (paragraph 60); and discharging the WAS with increased solids concentration from the solid-liquid separator (paragraph 60). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the wastewater treatment teachings of Schechter into Houweling as to not needing the state of an activated sludge reactor, thusly reducing cost and retention time.
Claim 20: Houweling discloses the previous limitations. Houweling further discloses feeding a wastewater to be treated into a mixing tank upstream of the MABR tank (equalization tank 44); feeding a return activated sludge (RAS) into the mixing tank (paragraphs 18-19); feeding the water from the solid-liquid separator into the mixing tank (Fig. 1, Examiner noting that a partial return of water will result from the return loop shown at the bottom of Fig. 1); and allowing the mixed liquor to flow from the mixing tank into the MABR tank (Fig. 1).
Claim 21: Houweling discloses the previous limitations. Houweling futher discloses allowing the mixed liquor to flow from the MABR tank into an activated sludge aeration tank (Fig. 1, note process tank 20) and then into a secondary clarifier (26); separating within the secondary clarifier the mixed liquor into a clarified effluent (28) and the RAS (34); and discharging the clarified effluent from the secondary clarifier (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 14 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houweling (US20210171375A1) in view of Cote (US20170088449A1).
Claim 14: Houweling further discloses that the activated sludge system further comprises an activated sludge aeration tank (20) downstream to said MABR tank and comprising a diffuser arrangement (22) located at a bottom portion of the activated sludge aeration tank but is not explicit about maintaining DO concentration in said activated sludge aeration tank below 1 mg/l. However, Cote teaches a wastewater treatment system using MABR in which DO levels in said activated sludge aeration tank were maintained below 1 mg/1 (see paragraphs 130-132). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize Cote’s DO concentrations if only to mimic a successful example level in wastewater treatment.
Claim 36: Houweling discloses the previous limitations but is not explicit about maintaining a DO concentration of less than 1.0 mg/I in said aerated tank. However, Cote teaches a wastewater treatment system using MABR in which DO levels in said activated sludge aeration tank were maintained below 1 mg/l (see paragraphs 130-132). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize Cote’s DO concentrations if only to mimic a successful example level in wastewater treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
