DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 11/26/2024, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-22 are canceled. Claims 23-40 are new. Claims 23-40 are pending.
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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference element character “5” was used to designate both secondary settler and treated wastewater.
The originally filed specification, pg. 10-11 and 23, describes figure 2A and refers to compartments Sa, Sb and Sc. However, figure 2A does not use reference element characters Sa, Sb and Sc.
The originally filed specification, pg. 11, says “figure 2”, which may have intended to read “figure 2B”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "Sa" and "a", “Sb” and “b”, and “Sc” and “c” are interchangeably used to refer to compartments a, b and c of the reactor. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: S1, S2, S3 and S4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: d. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 29 and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29 reads “at least the 10 wt% of largest sludge particles”.
Claim 39 reads “its”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 23 reads “the selector receives at least a portion of the sludge separated from the aerobically treated wastewater in secondary settling tank, flotation or mechanical separation located downstream from the aerobic purification reactor and/or sludge from the aerobic purification reactor.” For purposes of examination, Claim 23 is being interpreted such that the “located downstream from the aerobic purification reactor” refers to the “secondary settling tank, flotation or mechanical separation”.
Claim 23 reads “bringing substrate-containing to-be-purified wastewater, optionally after a pre-treatment step of the supplied wastewater, into contact with…”. For purposes of examination, Claim 23 is being interpreted such that “the supplied wastewater” and “substrate-containing to-be-purified wastewater” may refer to the same or distinct wastewaters.
Claim 23 reads “bringing substrate-containing to-be-purified wastewater… into contact with the accumulated sludge particles for a contact time of at least 10 minutes in the selector… during contacting the sludge with substrate-containing wastewater the sludge residence time in the selector is greater than the hydraulic residence time of the sludge/water mixture in the selector.” For purposes of examination, Claim 23 is being interpreted such that the “contact time” and “the hydraulic residence time” may or may not refer to the same period of time.
Claims depending on Claim 23 are affected by this interpretation.
Claim 24 reads “in the selector the sludge with the wastewater is subjected under anaerobic or anoxic conditions to discrete changes in flow velocity and/or a flow gradient.” Claim 24 is being interpreted such that the sludge and/or the wastewater is/are subjected to discrete changes in flow velocity and/or flow gradient while under anaerobic or anoxic conditions within the selector.
Claims depending on Claim 24 are affected by this interpretation.
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 23-40 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 refers to “at least part of biological sludge”. There is no antecedent basis of “biological sludge” and it is unclear if “biological sludge” is sludge from the “flow-through aerobic biologically activated sludge reactor” or any biological sludge.
Claim 23 refers to “substrate-containing wastewater”, “substrate-containing to-be-purified wastewater” and “the supplied wastewater”. It is unclear whether these refer to the same or distinct wastewaters.
Claim 23 refers to “the conditioned sludge/water mixture”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 refers to “the treated wastewater”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the faster-settling sludge" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 refers to “a continuous flow-through aerobic biologically activated sludge reactor” and “the aerobic purification reactor”. Claim language should be consistent.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the sludge/water mixture". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the treated wastewater after aerobic treatment is optionally separated from the sludge by settling in a secondary settling tank, flotation or mechanical separation, and wherein the selector receives at least a portion of the sludge separated from the aerobically treated wastewater in secondary settling tank, flotation or mechanical separation located downstream from the aerobic purification reactor and/or sludge from the aerobic purification reactor.” It is unclear whether the methods of separation are optional and the selector receiving at least a portion of sludge is required, or whether the whole limitation is optional.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of independent Claim 23, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the biologically-readily-degradable substrate" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 refers to “a residence time” whereas Claim 23, upon which Claim 27 depends, refers to “a contact time”. It is unclear whether these refer to the same or distinct time periods.
Claim 28 refers to “the aerobic biological purification reactor”. Claim language should be consistent.
Claim 28 refers to “the sludge-wastewater mixture”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 29 refers to “largest sludge particles”. It is unclear whether this refers to the same or distinct sludge particles from the sludge particles in the “accumulating sludge particles” in Claim 23, upon which Claim 29 depends, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 30, 32 and 37 recite the limitation "the return sludge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the slowest settling sludge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites “mechanical or gravity separators”. It is unclear if these refer to the same or distinct from the secondary settling tank and mechanical separation in Claim 23.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "rapidly biodegradable substrate”. It is unclear whether this refers to the same or distinct substrate as the substrate of Claim 23, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 31 refers to “the biological purification reactor”. Claim language should be consistent.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the treatment plant" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites “the sludge processing line”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the conditioned sludge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 refers to “at least two compartments”, “the compartment” and “the compartments”. It is unclear whether these refer to the same or distinct compartments, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 37 refers to “another purification line”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the term “another” implies that a purification line had been required in the claims.
Claim 39 refers to “the formation of granular sludge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 refers to “the addition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 refers to “reactor”. Claim language should be consistent.
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.
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 23-25, 27-28, 30-31, 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20200002201A1 (‘Stinson’) in view of International Publication WO2019195918A1 (‘Devlin’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 23-25, 27-28, 30-31, 36-37, Stinson teaches a method ([0002]) for the purification of substrate-containing wastewater in a continuous flow-through aerobic biologically activated sludge reactor (abstract and [0030]), wherein at least part of biological sludge is conditioned,
wherein conditioning comprises accumulating sludge particles which have a settling velocity of at least 2 m/h ([0037-0038]) by adjusting the sludge feeding flow rate ([0032], [0044], controllable food:microorganism ([0036], F:M) mass ratio) in an upward-flow or upflow setting (Fig. 6) such that the faster-settling sludge accumulates ([0036-0037], granules settle quickly) at the bottom of a selector (Fig. 6, [0039], anoxic zone), and
bringing substrate-containing to-be-purified wastewater (Fig. 6, [0039], from influent wastewater source 31), optionally after a pre-treatment step (Fig. 6, [0039], primary clarifier 2) of the supplied wastewater, into contact with the accumulated sludge particles ([0040]) for a contact time in the selector, and
wherein the selector works under anaerobic or anoxic conditions (Fig. 6, [0039], anoxic zone), and
wherein the conditioned sludge/water mixture leaving the selector, optionally after an additional anaerobic or anoxic contact step, is fed to the aerobic purification reactor (Fig. 6, [0040], aerobic zone 7) and subjected to aerobic treatment,
wherein the treated wastewater after aerobic treatment is optionally separated from the sludge by settling in a secondary settling tank, flotation or mechanical separation, and
wherein the selector receives (Fig. 6, [0041], return activated sludge (RAS) line 9) at least a portion of the sludge separated from the aerobically treated wastewater in secondary settling tank (Fig. 4-6, [0040], secondary clarifier 4), flotation or mechanical separation located downstream from the aerobic purification reactor (Fig. 4-6) and/or sludge from the aerobic purification reactor (Fig. 4-6, [0040], mixed liquor internal recycle line 8).
Stinson does not teach that the contact time is a contact time of at least 10 minutes and that the selector is operated or designed such that during contacting the sludge with substrate-containing wastewater the sludge residence time in the selector is greater than the hydraulic residence time of the sludge/water mixture in the selector.
Devlin also relates to a method for the purification of substrate-containing wastewater in a continuous flow-through aerobic biologically activated sludge reactor (abstract), including a contact time of at least 10 minutes (pg. 14, Table 1) and that the selector is operated or designed such that during contacting the sludge with substrate-containing wastewater the sludge residence time in the selector is greater than the hydraulic residence time of the sludge/water mixture in the selector (pg. 14, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the contact time and sludge residence time of Devlin and the method of Stinson to improve F:M for robust granule formation and to use smaller tank volumes than those in traditional arrangements (Stinson, [0083]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 24: in the selector the sludge with the wastewater is subjected under anaerobic or anoxic conditions to discrete changes in flow velocity (Stinson, [0032], altering the amount of the RAS flow) and/or a flow gradient.
Claim 25: discrete changes in flow velocity are accomplished by discrete variation in flux in the flow direction of the selector and/or by discrete variation in flow rate (Stinson, [0032], altering the amount of the RAS flow).
Claim 27: during contacting the accumulated sludge with substrate-containing wastewater at least 20 wt% of the sludge in the selector has a residence time in the selector which is at least 20% greater (Devlin, pg. 14, Table 1) than the hydraulic residence time of the sludge/water mixture in the selector.
Claim 28: the selector conditions the sludge/wastewater mixture such that at least 20% of the sludge in the aerobic biological purification reactor is granular sludge (Stinson, [0037]) with a minimum granule size of 0.212 mm (Stinson, Fig. 2, [0037]).
Claim 30: the selector is also fed with sludge or part thereof remaining from mechanical or gravity separators deployed to selectively discharge the slowest settling sludge (Stinson, Fig. 6-9, [0061], selective granule retention devices 36a-36d selectively waste our slower settling biomass), wherein the mechanical or gravity separators are located in the return sludge (Stinson, Fig. 6-9) or parallel to the aerobic biological purification reactor or between the aerobic biological purification reactor and the secondary settling tank (Stinson, Fig. 6-9).
Claim 31: the concentration of rapidly biodegradable substrate is increased by dosing an external carbon source, by a side stream (Stinson, Fig. 6-9, [0066], fermentation in sidestream reactor 12. Stinson, Fig. 12, [0068], at least some of the fermentate is sourced from imported carbon rich, high strength waste streams) from the sludge processing line that is part of the treatment plant where the biological purification reactor is in use, or by pre-treating the wastewater wholly or partially by means of hydrolysis or fermentation.
Claim 36: variation of flow velocity in the selector is achieved by varying the feed rate of the sludge (Stinson, [0032], altering the amount of the RAS flow).
Claim 37: the selector is also fed with a part of the return sludge (Stinson, Fig. 6, [0041], return activated sludge (RAS) line 9) and/or surplus sludge originating from another purification line (Stinson, Fig. 6, [0044], sidestream reactor 12 may be separate from tanks that define the main wastewater processing circuit 3).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20200002201A1 (‘Stinson’) and International Publication WO2019195918A1 (‘Devlin’) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20190152820A1 (‘Smith’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Stinson and Devlin teaches the method of Claim 23, except that said accumulated sludge is saturated with substrate-containing wastewater in the selector to an extent that at least 60% of the biologically readily-degradable substrate is adsorbed by the sludge.
Smith also relates to a method ([0001]) for the purification of substrate-containing wastewater in a(n) aerobic ([0042] and [0061]) biologically activated sludge reactor ([0002]), including that accumulated sludge is saturated with substrate-containing wastewater in the selector to an extent that at least 60% of the biologically readily-degradable substrate is adsorbed by the sludge ([0042], a majority of the BOD to be adsorbed by the activated sludge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the accumulated sludge of Stinson and Devlin to be saturated with substrate-containing wastewater to an extent that at least 60% of the biologically readily-degradable substrate is adsorbed by the sludge, as demonstrated by Smith, for BOD removal (Smith, [0046] and [0063]).
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20200002201A1 (‘Stinson’) and International Publication WO2019195918A1 (‘Devlin’) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20040206699A1 (‘Ho’), U.S. Publication US20200048131A1 (‘Stensel’), International Publication WO2014178711Al (‘Rozendal’) and Publication Feasibility of Continuous Flow Sequencing Batch Reactor in Domestic Wastewater Treatment (‘Mahvi’, American Journal of Applied Sciences 1 (4): 348-353, 2004).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 32-34, the combination of Stinson and Devlin teaches the method of Claim 23, including that the selector contains at least two compartments (Stinson, [0069], anoxic zone(s) such as anoxic entry zone 6), except for feeding wastewater and return sludge alternates with discharge of the conditioned sludge, and wherein the desired sludge is accumulated by providing sludge at the level of the liquid in the compartment and/or somewhere in between the bottom level and the liquid level of the compartment, and wherein the desired distribution in sludge residence time in the selector is obtained by feeding the compartments with wastewater at the bottom of the compartment and wherein discharge of the conditioned sludge can be achieved by applying variation in flow velocity, and/or applying mixing, and/or takes place through withdrawing at least a part of the sludge/wastewater at the level of the bottom of the compartment.
Ho also relates to also relates to a method for the purification of substrate-containing wastewater in a continuous flow-through aerobic biologically activated sludge reactor (abstract), including feeding wastewater and return sludge ([0055] and [0128], intermittent or continuous influent flow patterns) alternates with discharge of the conditioned sludge ([0206], intermittent mixing).
Stensel also relates to a method ([0032]) for the purification of substrate-containing wastewater in a continuous flow-through aerobic biologically activated sludge reactor (abstract), including that the desired sludge is accumulated by providing sludge at the level of the liquid in the compartment and/or somewhere in between the bottom level and the liquid level of the compartment (Fig. 4, [0072], granules move through line 21 to the selector tank 36).
Rozendal also relates to a method for the purification of substrate-containing wastewater in a flow-through aerobic biologically activated sludge reactor (abstract), including that the desired distribution in sludge residence time in the selector is obtained by feeding the compartments with wastewater at the bottom of the compartment (Fig. 1, pg. 5/last Pr-pg. 6/Pr1).
Mahvi also relates to a method for the purification of substrate-containing wastewater in a continuous flow-through aerobic biologically activated sludge reactor (abstract), including that discharge of the conditioned sludge can be achieved by applying variation in flow velocity, and/or applying mixing, and/or takes place through withdrawing at least a part of the sludge/wastewater at the level of the bottom of the compartment (pg. 349, subsection Experimental Procedures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for feeding wastewater and return sludge to alternate with discharge of the conditioned sludge in the method of Stinson and Devlin, as demonstrated by Ho, to meet any one or a number of biological treatment objectives depending on how the system is operated and/or configured (Ho, [0055], [0153], [0165]). It would have been obvious for the desired sludge to be accumulated by providing sludge at the level of the liquid in the compartment and/or somewhere in between the bottom level and the liquid level of the compartment in the combination of Stinson, Devlin and Ho, as demonstrated by Stensel, for selective wasting biomass from the top as more dense granules settle to the bottom (Devlin, pg. 7/last Pr-pg.8/Pr1). It would have been obvious for the desired distribution in sludge residence time in the selector is obtained by feeding the compartments with wastewater at the bottom of the compartment in the combination of Stinson, Devlin, Ho and Stensel, as demonstrated by Rozendal, in order to distribute flow and carry supernatant without granules to be discharged as treated effluent (Stensel, [0024]). It would have been obvious that discharge of the conditioned sludge can be achieved by applying variation in flow velocity, and/or applying mixing, and/or takes place through withdrawing at least a part of the sludge/wastewater at the level of the bottom of the compartment in the combination of Stinson, Devlin, Ho, Stensel and Rozendal, as demonstrated by Mahvi, because granules can settle rapidly (Stinson, [0036]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 33: the selector is operated intermittently (Ho, [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the selector of Stinson, Devlin, Ho, Stensel, Rozendal and Mahvi can be operated intermittently because biological wastewater treatment technologies may be classified using categories, including the control and operation of the system, which may be continuous or intermittent (Ho, [0007])).
Claim 34: the desired sludge is accumulated by providing sludge at the level of the liquid in the compartment and/or somewhere in between the bottom level and the liquid level of the compartment (Stensel, Fig. 4, [0072], granules move through line 21 to the selector tank 36), at a flow velocity which is at least 2 m3 wastewater per hour per m2 selector cross surface (Stensel, [0091] and [0073]. See [0093], the rise rate can be controlled) (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the flow velocity of Stensel and the wastewater of Stinson, Devlin, Ho, Stensel, Rozendal and Mahvi to select for granular size (Stensel, [0093]) and maximize sludge rejection efficiency (Stensel, [0073]). Furthermore, a liquid upflow velocity of 1.3 to 1.7 m/h may not be sufficient to suspend granules, Stensel, [0024]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20200002201A1 (‘Stinson’) and International Publication WO2019195918A1 (‘Devlin’) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20200048131A1 (‘Stensel’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of Stinson and Devlin teaches the method of Claim 23, except that variation of flow velocity in the selector is achieved by varying the feed flow rate of the wastewater.
Stensel also relates to a method ([0032]) for the purification of substrate-containing wastewater in a continuous flowthrough aerobic biologically activated sludge reactor (abstract), including that variation of flow velocity in the selector is achieved by varying the feed flow rate of the wastewater ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the feed flow rate of the wastewater in the method of Stinson and Devlin to provide a desired soluble BOD volumetric loading rate (Stensel, [0033]) to produce granules of a desired granule size (Stensel, [0047]).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20200002201A1 (‘Stinson’) and International Publication WO2019195918A1 (‘Devlin’) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Publication Feasibility of Continuous Flow Sequencing Batch Reactor in Domestic Wastewater Treatment (‘Mahvi’, American Journal of Applied Sciences 1 (4): 348-353, 2004).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 38, the combination of Stinson and Devlin teaches the method of Claim 23, except that the selector is followed by or integrated with a granular sludge reactor operating based on sequential batch principle.
Mahvi also relates to a method for the purification of substrate-containing wastewater in a continuous flow-through aerobic biologically activated sludge reactor (abstract), including that the selector (pg. 348-349, pre-react zone acts as a biological selector) is followed by or integrated with a granular sludge reactor operating based on sequential batch principle (pg. 349, subsection Continuous Flow SBR Reactor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the selector of the combination of Stinson and Devlin to be followed by or integrated with a granular sludge reactor operating based on sequential batch principle, as demonstrated by Mahvi, to result in high BOD, COD, N, and TSS removal, to provide a method that could be used in small to medium sized communities’ wastewater treatment plant (Mahvi, pg. 352, right column).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20200002201A1 (‘Stinson’) and International Publication WO2019195918A1 (‘Devlin’) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of International Publication WO2019046416A1 (‘Fraser’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed to a method.
Regarding Claim 39, the combination of Stinson and Devlin teaches the method of Claim 23, except that the formation of granular sludge is accelerated and/or its maintenance is supported by the addition of a carrier material, said carrier material having an average size of 0.05 - 2.5 mm and a relative density or specific gravity equal to or greater than that of the wastewater.
Fraser teaches adding ballast (carrier material) to RAS ([0059]) and that the density is greater than that of wastewater (sand can be used) ([0059]). Fraser does not explicitly teach the average particle size. Fraser further teaches that the size can be selected for effective separation ([0051]). Therefore, thorough routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use an average size of 0.05-2.5 mm. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Stinson and Fraser are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the carrier material (ballast) of Fraser to the granular sludge of Stinson in the combination of Stinson and Devlin, to separation and reduce the size of the aeration basin (see Fraser, [0052]). Furthermore, it is desirable in Stinson to decrease the size of the system (see Stinson, [0054]).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20200002201A1 (‘Stinson’) and International Publication WO2019195918A1 (‘Devlin’) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20040206699A1 (‘Ho’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 40, the combination of Stinson and Devlin teaches the method of Claim 23, except that the sludge in reactor comprises a mixture of biological sludge and a suspended biofilm carrier.
Ho also relates to also relates to a method for the purification of substrate-containing wastewater in a continuous flow-through aerobic biologically activated sludge reactor (abstract), including that the sludge in reactor comprises a mixture of biological sludge and a suspended biofilm carrier ([0030-0032] and [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sludge of the combination of Stinson and Devlin to comprise a mixture of biological sludge and a suspended biofilm carrier, as demonstrated by Ho, to provide better nitrification-denitrification performance (Ho, [0161] and [0163]), and to offer advantages including a more compact footprint (smaller process volume) (Ho, [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 29 contains limitations that are not disclosed, and would not have been obvious in view of the prior art. The closest prior art, Stinson, does not teach "at least the 10 wt % of largest sludge particles are contacted in the selector with the highest substrate concentration for at least 20% longer than the average contact time of the sludge and wherein this substrate concentration is at least 50% higher than the substrate concentration with which 15 wt % of the smallest sludge particles in the selector are in contact" (claim 29). This limitation is not known in this or related prior arts, therefore it would not have been obvious to modify Stinson.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights