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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11, 15-21, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN105983330A) in view of Jain (US20150140643A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Sun teaches the following:
A high-tower biological waste gas treatment device… and can efficiently remove waste gas pollutants such as hydrogen sulfide (a biological desulfurization processing system) (para 8)
A shell (desulfurization reaction tank)(para 9 and Fig. 1, below)
A culture tank of desulfurization bacteria connected to the desulfurization reaction tank (Fig. 1, below)
PNG
media_image1.png
654
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A plurality of filler layers are provided inside the shell, the filler layers are mixed (stacked in a staggered manner) and filled with attached filler materials (desulfurization layer) and supporting filler materials (supporting layer)(the desulfurization reaction tank comprises a desulfurization reaction zone, the desulfurization reaction zone comprises at least one desulfurization layer and at least one supporting layer, which are stacked in a staggered manner)(para 9 and Fig. 1, below)
Sun further teaches the attached filler material is a polyurethane foam (porous bio carrier) (para 9) and the supporting filler material is a polyethylene supporting material (supporting layer comprises a plurality of supporting elements) (para 9) (also see Fig. 2, below, for the porous bio carrier and Fig. 3, below, for the supporting filler). As stated above, the filler layers are mixed, creating stacked and staggered layers of the polyurethane foam and the polyethylene supporting material.
PNG
media_image2.png
302
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
223
409
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sun further teaches the volume ratio between the polyurethane foam and the supported filter material is 1 to 3:1 (the plurality of bio carriers are greater in number than the plurality of supporting elements)(para 10). Note: The volumes of the polyurethane foam elements and the supported filter material are 155 cm3 and 166 cm3 respectively (para 33). Given the ratio of volume at 3:1 of foam elements to supported filter material, the number of foam elements (bio carriers) would be greater in number than the supported filter material (supporting elements).
Sun does not explicitly teach the filling capacity of the plurality of the porous biocarriers and the plurality of supporting elements in the reaction zone to range from 80-95%.
Jain teaches a biological odor control system with a vessel, gas inlet and outlet, and media bed (Abstract). Jain further teaches the media bed to include high capacity inorganic materials for growing the biologic materials and the need to optimize the gas to liquid contact (para 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the device of Sun with the biocarriers and supporting elements to a range of 80-95%. One would have been motivated to do this as Jain teaches the importance of optimizing the gas to liquid contact (para 45) and this would be an effective way of optimization.
Regarding Claim 15, Sun in view of Jain teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun further teaches the porosity of the bio carriers to be less than a porosity of the supporting elements (see Fig. 2 and 3, above). The supporting element porosity is significantly higher given it is mostly empty space compared to the bio carrier.
Regarding Claim 16, Sun in view of Jain teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun further teaches a specific surface area of the porous bio carrier is greater than a specific surface area of the supporting element (see Fig. 2 and 3, above). Again, the supporting element is mostly empty space and therefore the surface area of the bio carrier would be greater than that of the supporting element.
Regarding Claim 17, Sun in view of Jain teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun further teaches the bio-carrier polyurethane foam and the supporting material to be polyethylene (para 9). The compressibility of the polyurethane foam is much greater than that of polyethylene as a foam has air pockets allowing the compression.
Regarding Claim 18, Sun in view of Jain teaches all the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun further teaches the volume ratio between the polyurethane foam (desulfurization layer) and the supported filler material (supporting layer) is 1 to 3:1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a ratio between 2:1 and 3:1 as overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 19, Sun in view of Jain teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun further teaches the packing layer is set as two layers (two sets)(each layer being one desulfurization unit), the polyurethane foam filter and the support material filled into each layer (para 41).
Regarding Claim 20, Sun in view of Jain teaches all the limitations of Claim 19 (see above). Sun further teaches the volume ratio between the polyurethane foam (desulfurization layer) and the supported filler material (supporting layer) is 1 to 3:1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a ratio between 2:1 and 3:1 as overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 21, Sun in view of Jain teaches all the limitations of Claim 19 (see above). Sun does not explicitly teach the ratio of the height of the desulfurization unit to a height of the reaction zone between 1:1.5 to 1:6.5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as changes in size or proportion have been held prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding Claim 25, Sun in view of Jain teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun further teaches the culture tank is connected to a top of the desulfurization reaction tank through a connecting part (see Fig. 1, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
602
605
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 26, Sun in view of Jain teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun further teaches an air inlet 2 (para 35) disposed on the side surface of the reaction tank and an air outlet 3 (para 38) disposed at the top of the reaction tank (also see Fig. 1, above).
Regarding Claim 27, Sun in view of Jain teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). The volumetric loading rate of hydrogen sulfide being from 30 gH2S/m3hr to 250 gH2S/m3hr is an intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP 2114). The device of Sun, given it has strong waste gas treatment capacity and high removal efficiency (para 20), would be capable of having a volumetric loading rate in that range based on flow rate and concentration of the gas being pumped into the device and therefore meets the claim.
Claims 11, 15-17, 19, and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN101077472A) in view of Sun et al. (CN105983330A) and further in view of Jain (US20150140643A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang teaches the following:
A trickling filtration system for purifying organic waste gas (a biological desulfurization processing system)(Abstract)
A desulfurization reaction tank (see annotated figure, below)
A culture tank connected to the desulfurization reaction tank (see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image5.png
866
795
media_image5.png
Greyscale
A desulfurization reaction zone (see figure below)
Wang further teaches a filler 2 within the filler reactor (see figure above and para 27). Wang does not teach the reaction zone to comprise at least one desulfurization layer and at least one supporting layer that are stacked in a staggered manner, the at least one desulfurization layer comprises a plurality of porous bio-carriers, the at least one supporting layer comprises a plurality of supporting elements, the plurality of bio-carriers are greater in number then the plurality of supporting elements, and the filling capacity of the bio-carriers and supporting elements in the reaction zone is between 80-95%.
Sun teaches a plurality of filler layers are provided inside the shell, the filler layers are mixed (stacked in a staggered manner) and filled with attached filler materials (desulfurization layer) and supporting filler materials (supporting layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang with the filler and support layers as taught by Sun. One would have been motivated to make this substitution as it is light weight, has small pressure loss, and a large specific surface area willing to efficiently remove waste gas pollutants such as hydrogen sulfide (para 8).
Sun further teaches the attached filler material is a polyurethane foam (porous bio carrier) (para 9) and the supporting filler material is a polyethylene supporting material (supporting layer comprises a plurality of supporting elements) (para 9) (also see Fig. 2, above, for the porous bio carrier and Fig. 3, above, for the supporting filler). As stated above, the filler layers are mixed, creating stacked and staggered layers of the polyurethane foam and the polyethylene supporting material. Sun further teaches the volume ratio between the polyurethane foam and the supported filter material is 1 to 3:1 (the plurality of bio carriers are greater in number than the plurality of supporting elements)(para 10). Note: The volumes of the polyurethane foam elements and the supported filter material are 155 cm3 and 166 cm3 respectively (para 33). Given the ratio of volume at 3:1 of foam elements to supported filter material, the number of foam elements (bio carriers) would be greater in number than the supported filter material (supporting elements).
Jain teaches a biological odor control system with a vessel, gas inlet and outlet, and media bed (Abstract). Jain further teaches the media bed to include high capacity inorganic materials for growing the biologic materials and the need to optimize the gas to liquid contact (para 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the device of Sun with the biocarriers and supporting elements to a range of 80-95%. One would have been motivated to do this as Jain teaches the importance of optimizing the gas to liquid contact (para 45) and this would be an effective way of optimization.
Regarding Claim 15, Wang in view of Sun and further in view of Jain teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun further teaches the porosity of the bio carriers to be less than a porosity of the supporting elements (see Fig. 2 and 3, above). The supporting element porosity is significantly higher given it is mostly empty space compared to the bio carrier.
Regarding Claim 16, Wang in view of Sun and further in view of Jain teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun further teaches a specific surface area of the porous bio carrier is greater than a specific surface area of the supporting element (see Fig. 2 and 3, above). Again, the supporting element is mostly empty space and therefore the surface area of the bio carrier would be greater than that of the supporting element.
Regarding Claim 17, Wang in view of Sun and further in view of Jain teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun further teaches the bio-carrier polyurethane foam and the supporting material to be polyethylene (para 9). The compressibility of the polyurethane foam is much greater than that of polyethylene as a foam has air pockets allowing the compression.
Regarding Claim 19, Wang in view of Sun and further in view of Jain teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun further teaches the packing layer is set as two layers (two sets)(each layer being one desulfurization unit), the polyurethane foam filter and the support material filled into each layer (para 41).
Regarding Claim 22, Wang in view of Sun and further in view of Jain teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Wang further teaches the reaction tank comprises a temporary storage zone located below the reaction zone and connected with the reaction zone (see figure below).
Regarding Claim 23, Wang in view of Sun and further in view of Jain teach all of the limitations of Claim 22 (see above). Wang further teaches the temporary storage zone is connected with the culture tank (see figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
973
949
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 24, Wang in view of Sun and further in view of Jain teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Wang further teaches an aeration pipe (aeration device) connected to the gas entrance 15 (claim 4). The gas entrance 15 is connected to the bottom of the reaction tank and the bottom of the culture tank through a connection port (see figure below).
Regarding Claim 25, Wang in view of Sun and further in view of Jain teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Wang further teaches the culture tank connected to the top of the desulfurization tank through a connecting part (see figure below).
Regarding Claim 26, Wang in view of Sun and further in view of Jain teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Wang further teaches a gas inlet disposed on the side surface of the reaction tank corresponding to the reaction zone and a gas outlet disposed at the top of the reaction tank (see figure above).
Regarding Claim 27, Wang in view of Sun and further in view of Jain teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). The volumetric loading rate of hydrogen sulfide being from 30 gH2S/m3hr to 250 gH2S/m3hr is an intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP 2114). The device of Sun, given it has strong waste gas treatment capacity and high removal efficiency (para 20), would be capable of having a volumetric loading rate in that range based on flow rate and concentration of the gas being pumped into the device and therefore meets the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN105983330A) in view of Jain (US20150140643A1) and further in view of Yang et al. (US20130137170A1).
Sun in view of Jain teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 (see above). Sun in view of Jain does not explicitly teach the pore size of the bio-carrier to be in a range from 200 micrometers to 2000 micrometers (.2 mm – 2 mm).
Yang teaches a biofilter system for treating waste gas (Abstract). Yang further teaches the porous packing material to have a pore size of 1-5 mm (para 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the pore size of between 1-2 mm as taught by Yang. One would have been motivated to make this selection as it would have provided an effective packing material with enough porosity and pore size for the treatment of waste gas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the packing layers arranged in a mixed manner does not meet the limitation of the desulfurization layer and the supporting layer being stacked in a staggered manner, the claim does not exclude the inclusion of other parts within the layers, therefore as the section are divided up into layers. One layer would include filter materials (porous bio-carriers) and supporting filter materials which is interpreted as the desulfurization layer, and the next layer would also include both filter materials and supporting filter materials and be interpreted as the supporting layer.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding the filling capacity of the bio-carriers and supporting elements being in a range from 80-95%, those limitations have been addressed by newly cited Jain (US20150140643A1)(see above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN E LEPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3971. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 571-272-7129. 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.
/J.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights