DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The appeal brief filed December 17, 2025, has been received and entered.
Claims 1-18 and 20-26 are pending and examined on the merits.
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on December 17, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/MELENIE L GORDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Response to Arguments
After further consideration, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 1-18 and 20-26 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of the previously cited prior art last cited in the Office Action mailed February 26, 2025. The claimed limitation of ‘wherein the metallic iron is preserved throughout the degradation time period’ is considered as being necessarily possessed by the composition rendered obvious by the cited prior art.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the terms “energetic compounds” and “energetic compound” in the claims, these terms are being interpreted according to the teaching in the specification that energetic compounds are “defined as the active chemical components of explosives and propellants” (paragraph [0002]).
Notice Re: Prior Art Available Under Both Pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 6-14, 16, 17, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford (US 6,348,639. Listed on IDS filed 3/2/20) in view of Imbrie (US 2007/0297858. Previously cited), Fu (Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2014. 267: 194-205. Previously cited), and Noland (US 2004/0007524. Previously cited), as evidenced by Mei (US 5,417,160. Previously cited) and Jin (US 2006/0249465. Previously cited).
The independent claims under examination are claims 1, 13, and 17.
Crawford discloses an invention relating to the biodegradation of various nitroaromatic compounds in water and soils using microorganisms (column 1, lines 23-26). The nitroaromatic compounds include explosives such as trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT) (column 1, lines 39-42; column 11, lines 49-52). As evidenced by Mei, dinitrotoluene is also a propellent (column 2, lines 59-60 of Mei). In the invention of Crawford, a slurry is formed comprising starchy carbohydrate 30, fermentative amylolytic microorganism 36, and an anaerobic consortium 44 of microorganisms which was used to biodegrade nitroaromatics in nitroaromatic-contaminated soil (Figure 14; column 19, lines 5-27, in particular lines 10-13 and 20-22). This slurry meets the claimed limitation of a composition for removing an energetic compound/energetic compounds (nitroaromatic compound(s) that is an explosive such as TNT and DNT, wherein DNT also meets the claimed limitation of a propellant) from contaminated environments.
In particular, the anaerobic consortium of microorganisms is directed to the ‘first bioremediation material comprising at least one organism capable of degrading an energetic compound’ of instant claim 1, the ‘first bioremediation material capable of degrading an energetic compound, wherein the energetic compound is an explosive or a propellant’ of instant claim 13, and the ‘first bioremediation material for degrading an energetic compound comprising an explosive or a propellant’ of instant claim 17. The anaerobic consortium of microorganisms comprises bacteria (column 11, lines 20-21). Thus it meets the elected species of ‘bacteria’ for the claimed ‘first bioremediation material.’
The starchy carbohydrate, which is also disclosed as starch, is a complex carbohydrate (column 14, lines 22-24). The starchy carbohydrate is fermented by the amylolytic microorganisms, specifically hydrolyzed to constituent sugars by the amylolytic microorganisms (column 4, lines 22-25 and 56-60). The anaerobic microorganisms (of the anaerobic consortium of microorganisms) are able to biodegrade the nitroaromatics in the presence of metabolizable sugar (column 5, lines 24-26). Since the starchy carbohydrate is the source of the sugars (obtained when hydrolyzed by the amylolytic microorganism), then it serves the purpose of fueling the anaerobic consortium of microorganisms (‘first bioremediation material’). Therefore, the starchy carbohydrate meets the claimed limitation of a ‘complex carbohydrate’ which is the elected species for the ‘polymeric substance fueling the first bioremediation material during the degrading of the energetic compound’ of instant claim 1, the ‘polymer capable of fueling the first bioremediation material during the degrading of the energetic compound’ of instant claim 13, and the ‘polymer for fueling the first bioremediation material during the degrading of the energetic compound’ of instant claim 17.
The fermentative amylolytic microorganism is directed to the ‘second bioremediation material’ of instant claims 1, 13, and 17 since the amylolytic microorganism can break the starchy carbohydrate (‘polymeric substance’ or ‘polymer’) into smaller molecules/plurality of molecules (in this case, constituent sugars) over a degradation time period to provide the fueling of the first bioremediation material in a time-release manner (the hydrolysis of the starchy carbohydrate is necessarily over time to obtain the sugars, meeting the claimed limitation of ‘time-release manner’).
Crawford differs from instant independent claim 1 in that Crawford does not expressly disclose that their slurry (meeting limitations of the claimed composition) comprises an adsorbent, wherein the adsorbent includes activated carbon impregnated with metallic iron within the porous structure of the activated carbon, wherein the metallic iron is preserved throughout the degradation time period (the degradation time period over which the second bioremediation material breaks the polymeric substance into smaller molecules to provide the fueling of the first bioremediation material in a time-release manner). Crawford further differs from instant claim 1 in that Crawford does not expressly disclose that the degradation time period is at least 20 days in duration.
Crawford differs from instant independent claim 13 in that Crawford does not expressly disclose that their slurry (meeting limitations of the claimed composition) comprises an adsorbent comprising activated carbon impregnated with metallic iron within the porous structure of the activated carbon. Crawford further differs from instant claim 13 in that Crawford does not expressly disclose that the metallic iron is preserved throughout the degradation time period (the degradation time period over which the second bioremediation material is capable of breaking the polymer into a plurality of molecules to provide the fueling of the first bioremediation material in a time-release manner).
Crawford differs from instant independent claim 17 in that Crawford does not expressly disclose that their slurry (meeting limitations of the claimed composition) comprises an adsorbent including activated carbon impregnated with metallic iron within the porous structure of the activated carbon, wherein the metallic iron is preserved throughout the degradation time period (the degradation time period over which the second bioremediation material breaks the polymer into a plurality of molecules to provide the fueling of the first bioremediation material in a time-release manner). Crawford further differs from instant claim 17 in that Crawford does not expressly disclose that the degradation time period (for breaking the polymer into a plurality of molecules by the second bioremediation material) is at least 20 days in length.
Imbrie discloses a method to sorb and/or biologically degrade contaminants in soil, groundwater, sludge, sediment or migrating contaminated vapor in surface soil, by distributing an effective amount of sorbent material(s) and/or amendments, in a dispersed fashion within the contaminated media, to sorb one or more contaminants and stimulate biological degradation of contaminants (paragraph [0013]). Imbrie defines “sorption” and “sorb” as the process at which one substance (sorbent) takes up, accumulates or holds another by either absorption or adsorption (paragraph [0012]). Therefore, sorbent material meets the claimed limitation of an ‘adsorbent’ of the instant claims. Exemplary contaminants that may be treated by the method of Imbrie include explosives such as TNT, nitroaromatics, 2,4-DNT, and 2,6-DNT (paragraphs [0080] and [0084]).
As to specific sorbent materials, Imbrie teaches that the sorbent material can consist of a variety of materials, including activated carbon (paragraph [0086]). Regarding activated carbon as the sorbent material, Imbrie teaches that microorganisms have an affinity for carbon, which is a positive aspect of the properties of carbon, whereby the carbon first attracts the contaminants, and then provides a somewhat optimal site on which the microorganisms may grow and degrade the sorbed contaminant (paragraph [0090]). Moreover, Imbrie teaches using their invention to treat an aquifer contaminated with DNT by adding activated carbon with anaerobic treatment and nutrient amendments (paragraph [0040]) – this serves as an example of using activated carbon for treating an explosive (DNT) as the contaminant.
Furthermore, Imbrie discloses that a number of materials and amendments may be used with the sorbent material (paragraph [0088]). The sorbent material may be amended with various materials, including nutrients, microorganisms, electron acceptors, electron donors or other substances to enhance contaminant removal and treatment (paragraph [0088]). Additionally, Imbrie teaches that the sorbent material may be active physically, biologically, or chemically, or may be combined with or be used to form composites with other biologically, physically, or chemically active (from a treatment perspective) materials (paragraph [0079]). The microorganisms include microorganisms that degrade the target contaminants (paragraph [0097]), and the select microorganism(s) will vary depending on the target contaminant, and may be aerobic, anaerobic, anoxic, or co-metabolic (paragraph [0099]).
Also, Imbrie teaches that the sorbent material may be injected with iron, creating a system in which the iron releases hydrogen that promotes anaerobic activity on the sorbent material (paragraph [0058]).
Fu reviews the use of zero-valent iron (ZVI) for the treatment of toxic contaminants, including nitroaromatic compounds (NACs), in groundwater and wastewater (abstract; page 195, right column, second paragraph). As evidenced by Jin, zero-valent iron is also known as metallic iron (paragraph [0016]). Fu discusses the use of zero-valent iron for treating nitroaromatic compounds, pointing out that nitroaromatic compounds include TNT, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, and 2,6-dinitrotoluene (page 198, left column, third paragraph). Zero-valent iron has been shown to be effective in the reduction of nitroaromatic compounds from wastewater (page 198, left column, third paragraph). Furthermore, it has been found that TNT in wastewater can be degraded using nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI) (page 198, left column, fourth paragraph).
Additionally, Fu teaches that using nanoscale zero-valent iron in remediation of contaminated groundwater or wastewater is limited due to its lack of stability, easy aggregation, and difficulty in separating nanoscale zero-valent iron from the treated solution (page 196, left column, second paragraph). To address these issues when used for removing different contaminants, studies have been performed in which nanoscale zero-valent iron is supported on solid porous materials such as carbon (page 196, left column, second paragraph). Table 1 on page 196 lists representative studies, one in which nanoscale zero-valent iron was supported on activated carbon for the removal of the contaminant arsenic. Fu points out that immobilizing nanoscale zero-valent iron particles on supporting materials for contaminants removal provides an easy operation and maintains the excellent reduction ability of nanoscale zero-valent iron (page 196, left column, second-to-last paragraph).
Noland is directed to compositions and methods for in situ remediation of contaminated environments, particularly to the remediation of soil and/or groundwater contaminated with halogenated hydrocarbons and bioremediation of soil and/or groundwater contaminated with hydrocarbons (paragraph [0002]). The compositions include a supported catalyst comprising activated carbon as the support impregnated with zero valent iron (paragraph [0024]). The activated carbon serves as an adsorbent (paragraphs [0023]-[0024]). Impregnating the activated carbon with zero valent iron provides sub-micron deposits of iron within the pore structure of the carbon, maximizing the metal’s available surface area and placing the metal where the concentration of adsorbed contaminant molecules is the highest (paragraph [0024]). Accordingly, the supported catalyst allows efficient contact of the iron with adsorbed chemicals contaminants, since the iron will be in close proximity to the contaminant (paragraph [0024]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have included a sorbent material (meeting the claimed limitation of an ‘adsorbent’) comprising activated carbon impregnated with zero valent iron (i.e. metallic iron) within the pore structure of the activated carbon in the slurry of Crawford. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a sorbent material including activated carbon in the slurry of Crawford because Imbrie discloses the use of sorbent material (such as activated carbon) for treating contaminants, including explosives such as TNT, DNT, and nitroaromatics (directed to the nitroaromatic compounds treated by the invention of Crawford), in soil and groundwater (paragraph [0013]), and since Imbrie teaches that the sorbent material can be amended with nutrients, microorganisms, and other substances to enhance contaminant removal and treatment (paragraph [0088]), which the starchy carbohydrate, fermentative amylolytic microorganism, and anaerobic consortium of microorganisms of Crawford are directed to. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a sorbent material in the slurry of Crawford since Imbrie teaches that sorbent materials have unique properties that allow them to treat contaminants (paragraph [0010]), acting to retard the movement of the contaminants and/or hold the contaminants to the sorbent material where the contaminants are either held and/or degraded through biological activity or other chemical reactions or treatment (paragraph [0015]).
Moreover, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a sorbent material comprising activated carbon since Imbrie teaches that when activated carbon is the sorbent material, microorganisms have an affinity for carbon, which is a positive aspect of the properties of carbon, whereby the carbon first attracts the contaminants, and then provides a somewhat optimal site on which the microorganisms may grow and degrade the sorbed contaminant (paragraph [0090]). Thus activated carbon as the sorbent material would have been desirable since it would have been expected to provide a somewhat optimal site on which the anaerobic consortium of microorganisms of Crawford may grow and degrade the sorbed contaminant (nitroaromatic compounds such as TNT and DNT). There would have been a reasonable expectation of using a sorbent material comprising activated carbon for the biodegradation of explosives such as TNT and DNT as sought for the composition of Crawford since Imbrie teaches an example of treating an aquifer contaminated with DNT by adding activated carbon with anaerobic treatment and nutrient amendments (paragraph [0040]).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include activated carbon that is impregnated with zero valent iron (i.e. metallic iron) within the pore structure of the activated carbon since Fu teaches that zero valent iron (such as nanoscale zero valent iron) can degrade nitroaromatic compounds including TNT (page 198, left column, third and fourth paragraphs), and since Imbrie teaches that the sorbent material (e.g. activated carbon) may be amended with substances to enhance contaminant removal and treatment (paragraph [0088]) wherein the contaminant can be explosives such as nitroaromatics, TNT, and DNT (paragraph [0084]). Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to impregnate activated carbon with zero valent iron (e.g. nanoscale zero valent iron) since Imbrie teaches an embodiment in which the sorbent material is injected with iron, creating a system in which the iron releases hydrogen that promotes anaerobic activity on the sorbent material (paragraph [0058]), and since Fu teaches that immobilizing nanoscale zero valent iron is advantageous since it overcome issues of using nanoscale zero valent iron in remediation of contaminated groundwater or wastewater (lack of stability, easy aggregation, difficulty in separating nanoscale zero valent iron from the treated solution), provides easy operation, and maintains the excellent reduction ability of nanoscale zero valent iron (page 196, left column, second and third paragraphs). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to impregnate activated carbon with zero valent iron within the pore structure of the activated carbon since Noland teaches that this maximizes the metal’s available surface area, places the metal where the concentration of adsorbed contaminant molecules is the highest, and allows efficient contact of the iron with adsorbed chemicals contaminants since the iron will be in close proximity to the contaminant (paragraph [0024]). Though Noland focuses their invention on the treatment of halogenated hydrocarbons as the contaminant, the same effects would have been expected with an explosive such as nitroaromatics, TNT, and DNT as the contaminant since the activated carbon and zero valent iron are used in comparable manners for treating a variety of contaminants (see Imbrie and the review of Fu). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success of impregnating the activated carbon with zero valent iron within the pore structure of the activated carbon and providing the sorbent material with the microorganisms and starchy carbohydrate in the slurry of Crawford for the purpose of biodegrading nitroaromatic compounds (including TNT and DNT) since Noland teaches impregnating the activated carbon with the zero valent iron provides sub-micron deposits of iron within the pore structure of the carbon (paragraph [0024]) and since Imbrie teaches that the sorbent material can be used or amended with substances to enhance contaminant removal and treatment, including microorganisms and nutrients, wherein the contaminant can be explosives such as nitroaromatics, TNT, and DNT.
Regarding the claimed limitation ‘wherein the metallic iron is preserved’ with respect to the second bioremediation material capability of breaking the polymer into a plurality of molecules over a degradation time period to provide the fueling of the first bioremediation material in a time-release manner in instant claim 13, it is directed to the preservation of the metallic iron over the course of said degradation time period. Fu points out that issues using nanoscale zero-valent iron in remediation of contaminated groundwater or wastewater, including the lack of stability of nanoscale zero-valent iron (i.e. metallic iron), are addressed by supporting the nanoscale zero-valent iron on solid porous materials such as carbon (page 196, left column, second paragraph). Also, Fu teaches that immobilizing nanoscale zero-valent iron particles on supporting materials for contaminants removal maintains the excellent reduction ability of nanoscale zero-valent iron (page 196, left column, second-to-last paragraph). Since the reduction ability of the nanoscale zero-valent iron is maintained by the immobilization, then nanoscale zero-valent iron is present during the treatment of toxic contaminants. Therefore, it would have been obvious that zero valent iron (i.e. metallic iron) is present during the biodegradation of nitroaromatic compounds of the invention rendered obvious by Crawford in view of Imbrie, Fu, and Noland. The biodegradation of nitroaromatic compounds includes the fermentative amylolytic microorganism (‘second bioremediation material’) breaking the starchy carbohydrate (‘polymer’) into constituent sugars (‘plurality of molecules’) over a degradation time period to provide the fueling of the anaerobic consortium of microorganisms (‘first bioremediation material’). Accordingly, zero valent iron is present over the course of said degradation time period. The claimed limitation ‘the metallic iron is preserved’ is broad and does not set forth what aspect of metallic iron is preserved. Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting that as long as metallic iron is present, then ‘the metallic iron is preserved.’
Moreover, MPEP 2112(I) states, “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’” Since the references render obvious the claimed composition (a composition comprising the same components as claimed), then the metallic iron of the composition is necessarily preserved throughout the claimed degradation time period. As such, the claimed limitation ‘wherein the metallic iron is preserved throughout the degradation time period’ of instant claim 13 is necessarily possessed by the composition rendered obvious by the references.
Therefore, Crawford in view of Imbrie, Fu, and Noland (as evidenced by Mei and Jin) renders obvious instant claim 13.
Regarding the limitation ‘wherein the degradation time period is at least 20 days’ in duration/length of instant independent claims 1 and 17 and instant claims 16 and 23, the limitation is directed to the intended use of the ‘second bioremediation material.’ Crawford does not explicitly disclose that the fermentative amylolytic microorganism (directed to the ‘second bioremediation material’) breaks the starchy carbohydrate (directed to the ‘polymeric substance’ or ‘polymer’ of the instant claims) into sugars (directed to ‘smaller molecules’ of instant claim 1 and ‘plurality of molecules’ of instant claims 13 and 17) over a degradation time period of at least 20 days in duration/length. However, MPEP 2112(I) indicates, “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’” Additionally, MPEP 2112(I) states, “Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.” Since the starchy carbohydrate of Crawford is a complex carbohydrate from which sugars are “released” over a period of time (column 13, lines 65-67; column 14, lines 22-24), since complex carbohydrates allow maintenance of strict anaerobic conditions in the fluid medium to be extended for a time period sufficient to biodegrade the particular concentration of contaminant nitroaromatic without the need to add more carbon source (column 11, lines 2-7), and since examples of Crawford were performed for a four-week period and 30 days (falling in the range of ‘at least 20 days’) (column 16, lines 45-60 and 65-67), then the fermentative amylolytic microorganism (‘second bioremediation material’) is necessarily capable of breaking down the starchy carbohydrate (‘polymeric substance’ or ‘polymer’) into sugars (‘smaller molecules’ or ‘plurality of molecules’) over a degradation time period of at least 20 days in duration in the composition rendered obvious by Crawford in view of Imbrie, Fu, and Noland (as evidenced by Mei and Jin).
Regarding the claimed limitation ‘wherein the metallic iron is preserved throughout the degradation time period,’ wherein the degradation time period is at least 20 days in duration or length in instant independent claims 1 and 17, see discussion above with respect to ‘wherein the metallic iron is preserved throughout the degradation time period’ in instant claim 13. As pointed out above, MPEP 2112(I) states, “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’” Since the references render obvious the claimed composition (a composition comprising the same components as claimed), then the metallic iron is necessarily preserved throughout the claimed degradation time period of at least 20 days in duration/length in the composition rendered obvious by the references. As such, the claimed limitation ‘wherein the metallic iron is preserved throughout the degradation time period,’ wherein the degradation time period is at least 20 days in duration/length in instant claims 1 and 17 (which is a limitation of instant claims 16 and 23) is necessarily possessed by the composition rendered obvious by Crawford in view of Imbrie, Fu, and Noland (as evidenced by Mei and Jin).
Therefore, instant claims 1, 9 (elected species ‘bacteria’), 10 (elected species ‘complex carbohydrate’), 11 (starch), 16 (elected species ‘bacteria’), 17, and 21-23 are rendered obvious by Crawford in view of Imbrie, Fu, and Noland (as evidenced by Mei and Jin).
Regarding instant claim 7, TNT and DNT each meet the claimed limitation of ‘an explosive that is a nitrocompound.’ Thus instant claim 7 is rendered obvious.
Regarding instant claim 8, DNT meets the claimed limitation of a ‘propellant,’ as evidenced by column 2, lines 59-60 of Mei. Thus instant claim 8 is rendered obvious.
Regarding instant claim 12, Crawford teaches using starch potato waste from a potato processing plant or any vegetable or grain starch as the starchy carbohydrate (column 14, lines 34-44). These meet the claimed limitation of a ‘food grade starch.’ Thus instant claim 12 is rendered obvious.
Regarding instant claims 6, 14, and 24, Imbrie teaches that the sorbent material can consist of a variety of materials, including activated carbon, surfactant modified zeolite, activated alumina, and zeolite (paragraph [0086]). In including a sorbent material comprising activated carbon in the slurry of Crawford based on the teachings of Imbrie and Fu (see reasoning for the rejection of instant claim 13 above), it would have been obvious to further apply specific teachings regarding the sorbent material of Imbrie, specifically further including surfactant modified zeolite, activated alumina, or zeolite in the sorbent material for the predictable resulting of providing a sorbent material that is suitable for sorbing nitroaromatic compounds that are explosives such as TNT and DNT, for their biodegradation. Therefore, instant claims 6 (alumina, zeolite), 14 (starchy carbohydrate meets the elected species ‘complex carbohydrate’; alumina, zeolite), and 24 (alumina, zeolite) are rendered obvious.
Claims 2, 3, 15, 18, 20, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford, Imbrie, Fu, and Noland, as evidenced by Mei and Jin as applied to claims 1, 6-14, 16, 17, and 21-24 above, and further in view of Braida (US 2010/0126944. Previously cited).
As discussed above, Crawford in view of Imbrie, Fu, and Noland (as evidenced by Mei and Jin) renders obvious claims 1, 6-14, 16, 17, and 21-24. Regarding claim 2, Crawford teaches that the nitroaromatic compounds that are biodegraded include explosives such as trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT) (column 1, lines 39-42; column 11, lines 49-52); these meet the TNT and DNT embodiments of the energetic compound of claim 2. Regarding claim 18, the starchy carbohydrate (meeting the claimed limitation of the ‘polymer’ of parent claim 17) is disclosed in Crawford as starch (column 14, lines 22-24), thus meeting the starch limitation of claim 18. Regarding claims 20 and 25, the anaerobic consortium of Crawford (meeting the claimed limitation of ‘first bioremediation material’ of parent claim 17) comprises bacteria (column 11, lines 20-21), thus meeting the bacteria limitation of claims 20 and 25. The references differ from claims 2, 18, 20, and 25 in that they do not expressly disclose that the zero valent iron (i.e. metallic iron) is copper plated.
The references differ from claim 3 in that they do not expressly disclose that the sorbent material (‘the adsorbent’) includes at least one of zinc, tin, platinum, palladium, copper, manganese, iridium, bismuth, cobalt, titanium, and nickel.
Regarding claim 15, the references render obvious parent claim 14 and render obvious the embodiment of the polymer comprising starch. However, the references differ from claim 15 in that they do not expressly disclose that the sorbent material (‘the adsorbent’ as instantly claimed) further comprises activated carbon impregnated with at least one additional metal and wherein the at least one additional metal is chosen from a group that consists of zinc, tin, etc.
Fu discloses doping zero-valent iron (ZVI) with other metals (page 196, right column, second-to-last paragraph). To enhance the reactivity of zero-valent iron, bimetallic particles with iron as the principal metal and the deposition of a thin layer of transition metals such as palladium, copper, nickel, or platinum on the surface of iron have been effective in the removal of contaminants (page 196, right column, second-to-last paragraph). Bimetallic particles have several potential advantages over zero-valent iron, such as faster reaction kinetics and slower deposition of corrosion products on the particle surface (page 196, right column, second-to-last paragraph). The representative studies dealing with contaminants removal by bimetal particles include nickel-iron and copper-iron bimetals used for removal of explosive compounds (page 196, right column, second-to-last paragraph and Table 2 on page 197).
Braida discloses bimetallic particles comprising cores of zero-valent iron having discontinuous coatings of metallic copper on their surfaces, which are used for treating water containing organic nitro compounds, particularly wastewaters containing energetic compounds of that type (paragraph [0013]). The treatment is effective in degrading energetic nitro compounds to simple low-energy compounds (paragraph [0013]). Energetic organic nitro compounds include explosives such as nitro aromatic compounds (paragraph [0004]), including TNT (paragraph [0024]). The bimetallic particles of Braida may be prepared by applying a copper surface coating to the zero-valent iron (Fe(0)) (ZVI; see paragraph [0025]) core through known methods, including electroless plating (paragraph [0034]). These bimetallic particles made by electroless plating meet the claimed limitation of metallic iron that is copper plated.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the zero-valent iron with the bimetallic particles of Braida comprising cores of zero-valent iron having discontinuous coatings of metallic copper applied on the surfaces thereof by electroless plating (meeting the claimed limitation of metallic iron that is copper-plated) in the slurry rendered obvious by Crawford in view of Imbrie, Fu, and Noland (as evidenced by Mei and Jin). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because the deposition of a thin layer of a transition metal such as copper on the surface of iron enhances the reactivity of zero valent iron, bimetallic particles are advantageous over zero valent iron since they have faster reaction kinetics and slower deposition of corrosion products on the particle surface, and the bimetallic particles (directed to metallic iron that is copper-plated) are effective in degrading energetic nitro compounds (which the nitroaromatic compounds such as TNT and DNT are directed to) to simple low-energy compounds (paragraph [0013] of Braida). Therefore, instant claims 2, 3 (since the bimetallic particles comprise copper, then the sorbent material includes copper), 18, 20, and 25 are rendered obvious.
Alternatively, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have further impregnated the activated carbon with the bimetallic particles of Braida comprising cores of zero-valent iron having discontinuous coatings of metallic copper applied on the surfaces thereof by electroless plating, or nickel-iron bimetallic particles (as taught in Table 2 of Fu) in the slurry rendered obvious by Crawford in view of Imbrie, Fu, and Noland (as evidenced by Mei and Jin). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because the bimetallic particles of Braida are effective in degrading energetic nitro compounds (which the nitroaromatic compounds such as TNT and DNT are directed to) to simple low-energy compounds (paragraph [0013] of Braida) and nickel-iron bimetallic particles are effective in removing explosive compounds (Table 2 of Fu). Therefore, instant claims 3 (since the bimetallic particles comprise copper or nickel, then the sorbent material includes copper or nickel) and 15 (at least one additional metal being copper or nickel) are rendered obvious.
Regarding instant claim 26 (which depends from instant claim 18), as discussed above with respect to the rejection of the independent claims, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have included a sorbent material (meeting the claimed limitation of an ‘adsorbent’) comprising activated carbon impregnated with zero valent iron (i.e. metallic iron) within the pore structure of the activated carbon in the slurry of Crawford, based on the teaching in Imbrie disclosing the use of sorbent material, such as activated carbon, for treating contaminants, including explosives such as TNT, DNT and nitroaromatics, in soil and groundwater (paragraph [0013] of Imbrie). See the rejection of the independent claims above. Additionally, Imbrie also discloses that the sorbent material can consist of a variety of materials, including activated carbon (paragraph [0086]). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use activated carbon as the sorbent material in the slurry of Crawford since Imbrie teaches that when activated carbon is the sorbent material, microorganisms have an affinity for carbon, which is a positive aspect of the properties of carbon, whereby the carbon first attracts the contaminants, and then provides a somewhat optimal site on which the microorganisms may grow and degrade the sorbed contaminant (paragraph [0090]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use activated carbon that is impregnated with zero valent iron (i.e. metallic iron) within the pore structure of the activated carbon since Fu teaches that zero valent iron (such as nanoscale zero valent iron) can degrade nitroaromatic compounds including TNT (page 198, left column, third and fourth paragraphs), and since Imbrie teaches that the sorbent material (e.g. activated carbon) may be amended with substances to enhance contaminant removal and treatment (paragraph [0088]) wherein the contaminant can be explosives such as nitroaromatics, TNT, and DNT (paragraph [0084]). See also the reasoning for the rejection of the independent claims above. Furthermore, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs for the rejection of claim 18, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the zero-valent iron with the bimetallic particles of Braida comprising cores of zero-valent iron having discontinuous coatings of metallic copper applied on the surfaces thereof by electroless plating (meeting the claimed limitation of metallic iron that is copper-plated) in the slurry rendered obvious by Crawford in view of Imbrie, Fu, and Noland (as evidenced by Mei and Jin). In making these modifications, then Crawford, Imbrie, Fu, and Noland, as evidenced by Mei and Jin, and further in view of Braida render obvious that the sorbent material (the claimed ‘adsorbent’) consists essentially of the activated carbon impregnated with metallic iron within the porous structure of the activated carbon, wherein the metallic iron is copper plated, thereby rendering obvious instant claim 26.
Claims 3-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford, Imbrie, Fu, Noland with evidence provided by Mei and Jin as applied to claims 1, 6-14, 16, 17, and 21-24 above, and further in view of Clausen (US 8,092,622. Previously cited).
As discussed above, Crawford in view of Imbrie, Fu, and Noland (as evidenced by Mei and Jin) renders obvious claims 1, 6-14, 16, 17, and 21-24. The references differ from claim 3 in that they do not expressly disclose that the sorbent material (‘the adsorbent’) includes at least one of zinc, tin, platinum, palladium, copper, manganese, iridium, bismuth, cobalt, titanium, and nickel. The references differ from claim 4 in that they do not expressly disclose that the sorbent material (‘adsorbent’) further includes at least one of a ferro-titanium alloy, a magnesium alloy, a bismuth alloy, a Devarda’s alloy, and a mercury amalgam. The references differ from claim 5 in that they do not expressly disclose that the sorbent material (‘adsorbent’) further includes iron activated with platinum or palladium.
Regarding claim 15, the references render obvious parent claim 14 and render obvious the embodiment of the polymer comprising starch. However, the references differ from claim 15 in that they do not expressly disclose that the sorbent material (‘the adsorbent’) further comprises activated carbon impregnated with at least one additional metal and wherein the at least one additional metal is chosen from a group that consists of zinc, tin, etc.
Clausen discloses the use of metal alloys for the degradation of nitro and peroxide explosives (column 1, lines 25-28). In particular, Clausen discloses a plurality of neat micron sized bimetallic alloy particles selected from the group consisting of iron palladium (FePd), iron nickel (FeNi), and magnesium palladium (MgPd) (column 6, lines 8-11) which are used in the degradation of an explosive compound including 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) (column 6, lines 8-16). See also column 6, lines 38-46, referring to the particles as a plurality of bimetal alloy particles. The invention of Clausen is useful in the degradation of an explosive compound that is a contaminant in soil, ground water and other structures (column 6, lines 16-19 and column 8, lines 7-11). Additionally, several metal particle systems are disclosed by Clausen for the practice of their invention, including iron and magnesium particles that have been activated by ball milling palladium to their surface (column 8, lines 12-15).
The plurality of bimetallic alloy particles that are magnesium palladium which is directed to a magnesium alloy, meeting an embodiment of instant claim 4. The iron particles activated by ball milling palladium to their surface are directed to iron activated with palladium, meeting an embodiment of instant claims 5 and 15.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have further amended the sorbent material, or impregnated the activated carbon, with any of the bimetallic alloy particles disclosed by Clausen, including FePd, FeNi, MgPd, and iron particles activated by ball milling palladium to their surface, in the slurry rendered obvious by Crawford in view of Imbrie, Fu, and Noland (as evidenced by Mei and Jin). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because these metal alloy particles are useful for degrading explosive compounds such as TNT that is a contaminant in soil and ground water, as demonstrated by Clausen, which would have been sought for the invention of Crawford in which various nitroaromatic compounds including TNT are biodegraded in water and soils. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to amend the sorbent material or impregnate the activated carbon with the metal alloy particles of Clausen (neat bimetallic alloy particles that are magnesium palladium, or iron particles activated by ball milling palladium) since Imbrie teaches that the sorbent material may be amended with substances to enhance contaminant removal and treatment (paragraph [0088]) wherein the contaminant can be explosives such as TNT (paragraph [0084]); the metal alloy particles of Clausen are directed to substances to enhance TNT contaminant removal and treatment. There would have been a reasonable expectation that the resulting slurry is effective for biodegradation of various nitroaromatic compounds including TNT in water and soils (as sought by Crawford) since the metal alloy particles of Clausen are useful for degradation of TNT to remediate contaminated groundwater and soil. Therefore, instant claims 3 (palladium, nickel), 4 (a magnesium alloy), 5 (iron activated with palladium), and 15 (palladium, nickel, magnesium, iron activated with palladium) are rendered obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN EMILY FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3444. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30am - 7pm.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
Sef
/SUSAN E. FERNANDEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 1651