DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 19 reads “The method of 18” it should read “The method of claim 18”
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by POWELL et al (CA 3151822 A1, herein after Powell).
Regarding claim 1, Powell discloses a system for clarifying water, the system comprises: a water clarifier comprising a settling tank; a sample port disposed in a wall of the settling tank and configured to allow for the removal of a sludge sample from the settling tank (Fig 1 element MR1); a fluid characterization unit fluidically coupled to the sample port; a controller coupled to the fluid characterization unit (Claim 2); and a chemical additive pump coupled to the controller and the water clarifier (Fig 1 elements TS, P, MS1 and abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
1004
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Powell discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the fluid characterization unit comprises a Coriolis meter or a refractometer (Fig 1 and Page 72 Line 25).
Regarding claim 6, Powell discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the fluid characterization unit is configured to measure a density of the sludge sample removed from the sample port (page 13 line 24-26 and claim 2).
Regarding claim 7, Powell discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the fluid characterization unit outputs a signal corresponding to the measured density of the sludge sample to the controller (Page 31 line 25-29 and claim 2).
Regarding claim 8, Powell discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the controller is configurable to receive the output signal from the fluid characterization unit and then output a second signal to the chemical additive pump (Claim 2 and Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Powell discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the chemical additive pump is configurable to receive the second signal from the controller and to introduce a chemical additive into the water clarifier; wherein a volume of the introduced chemical additive is determined by the controller (Claim 2 and Fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Powell discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the controller is configurable to determine the volume of the introduced chemical additive using a reference table or calibration curve based in part on the measured density of the sludge sample (Page 72 Line 24-36).
Regarding claim 11, Powell discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the controller is configurable to determine the volume of chemical additive and to output the corresponding second signal to the chemical additive pump automatically and without operator input (Powell Page 43 line 6-19).
Regarding claim 12, Powell discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the chemical additive comprises aluminum chlorohydrate, polyaluminum chloride, epichlorohydrin, polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride, sodium aluminate, ferric chloride, ferric sulfate, aluminum chloride, aluminum sulfate anionic polyacrylamide, cationic polyacrylamide, or a combination of chemical additives (Page 62 line 1-21 and Page 46-47).
Regarding claim 13, Powell discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is a proportional–integral–derivative controller (PID) (Page 65 line 28-36 and Page 66 line 1-6).
Regarding claim 14, Powell discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of chemical additive pumps each configurable to introduce a different species of chemical additive into the water clarifier (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, Powell discloses a method for clarifying water, the method comprises: obtaining a sludge sample from a settling tank of a water clarifier, measuring a density of the sludge sample, and adjusting a volume of a chemical additive introduced into the water clarifier based at least in part on the measured density of the sludge sample (Page 31 line 25-29 and Claim 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Powell discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the density is measured with a Coriolis meter or a refractometer (Fig 1 and Page 72 Line 25).
Regarding claim 17, Powell discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the Coriolis meter or a refractometer outputs a signal to a controller coupled to a chemical additive pump which introduces the chemical additive into the water clarifier (Claim 2 and Fig 1).
Regarding claim 18, Powell discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising configuring the controller to determine the volume of the introduced chemical additive using a reference table or calibration curve based in part on the measured density of the sludge sample (Page 72 Line 24-36).
Regarding claim 19, Powell discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising configuring the controller to determine the volume of chemical additive and to output a signal to the chemical additive pump automatically and without operator input (Claim 1-2 and Fig 1).
Regarding claim 20, Powell discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the introduced chemical additive adjusts a density of a sludge bed disposed in the settling tank (Page 44 Line 10-25).
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lam et al (US 20210387870 A1, hereinafter Lam).
Regarding claim 3, Powell discloses the system of claim 1, but fail to explicitly discloses wherein the settling tank comprises a plurality of sample ports arranged vertically through the wall of the settling tank, however, Lam teaches discloses wherein the settling tank comprises a plurality of sample ports arranged vertically through the wall of the settling tank (Fig 11 elements 1182-2 and 1182-3). Lam and Powell are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are filtration device. It would be beneficial to incorporate the teaching of Lam with Powell to be able to separate different fluids by the density of the fluids(Liam ¶[0133]), therefor it would be obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claim invention to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image2.png
460
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Powell discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the plurality of sample ports are configured to remove a sludge sample from a different height of a sludge bed disposed in the settling tank (Lam Fig 11 elements 1182-2 and 1182-3) .
Regarding claim 5, modified Powell discloses the system of claim 4, further comprising at least one fluid characterization unit; wherein each individual sample port is fluidically coupled to at least one fluid characterization unit. The modified Powell discloses multiple sample ports; thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the MS2 fluid characterization unit as seen in Powell to collect density data at each given level in the tank to more accurately measure the density of the composition (See MPEP 2144).
Conclusion
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.
/K.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights