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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (371 of PCT/US2020/051013, filed 16 September 2020; which has Pro 62/900,876, filed 16 September 2019) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “wherein the halogen is elemental bromine in liquid form and the sulfur source is elemental sulfur” should be corrected to read “wherein the halogen is elemental bromine in liquid form, and the sulfur source is elemental sulfur” for punctuation/grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites forming a sorbent by “combining a halogen and a sulfur at a molar ratio of 1:0.5 to 2.5:1, wherein the halogen is elemental bromine in liquid form and the sulfur source is elemental sulfur,” and “contacting the combination of the halogen and the sulfur to an activated carbon sorbent at a temperature between 75 degrees C to 700 degrees C to form a sorbent containing the halogen and the sulfur.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 1 is directed to a method of using a formed sorbent to reduce environmental availability in a contaminated solid substance. The formation language is considered as part of the claimed process, but the relevant material used in the reduction step is the formed activated carbon sorbent containing bromine and sulfur. Claim 1 is not a product claim to the sorbent itself and is not directed solely to reproducing a sorbent-manufacturing process. MPEP § 2116 requires consideration of all process limitations, including product-related limitations recited in a method claim, while recognizing that obviousness is a fact-specific inquiry based on the claimed subject matter as a whole. Thus, the pertinent prior-art inquiry is whether the prior art teaches or renders obvious a formed activated carbon sorbent containing bromine and sulfur for mercury capture/stabilization, and applying such sorbent to a contaminated solid substance to reduce environmental availability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GILMOUR et al. (Activated Carbon Mitigates Mercury and Methylmercury Bioavailability in Contaminated Sediments, 2013; hereinafter GILMOUR) in view of QU et al. (Oxidation and Stabilization of Elemental Mercury from Coal-Fired Flue Gas by Sulfur Monobromide, 2010; herein after QU)
Regarding Claim 1, GILMOUR discloses using activated carbon to reduce extractable Hg in soils and to lower Hg(i) and MeHg concentrations in pore waters by sorption to organic matter in sediments from contaminated sites (Pg. 13002).
In Sediment Water Microcosms, four microcosm studies are conducted using sediments from different contaminated sites. Each study tests three sorbent amendments, and AC is used in every study. Four-liter buckets are filled with approximately 750 cc of sediment, and the sorbents are thoroughly mixed into the sediment by hand. For South River, Lake, and Berry’s Creek sediments, the target dose is 5% by dry sediment weight. At Canal Creek, a range of AC doses is tested in preparation for a field trial (Pg. 13002).
In Effect of Amendments on Hg and MeHg Partitioning and Bioaccumulation, AC was the most consistently effective amendment, significantly reducing pore-water MeHg concentrations and increasing MeHg sediment:water partitioning in all four test sediments (Pg. 13006).
In Sediment Amendments Reduce Biotic Uptake by Reducing Hg and MeHg Bioavailability to Organisms, the amendments most effective in reducing pore-water Hg and MeHg concentrations were also most effective in reducing worm uptake. AC was generally the most effective tested amendment in reducing bioaccumulation factors and increasing sediment:water partition coefficients, especially for MeHg (Pg. 13006-13007).
However, GILMOUR does not explicitly disclose the sorbent containing bromine and sulfur.
QU discloses a mercury-capture system using sulfur monobromide (S₂Br₂), activated carbon, and mercury stabilization through sulfur-bromine chemistry (Abstract, Pg. 3889).
In S₂Br₂ Preparation and Properties, S₂Br₂ is described as being readily prepared in the laboratory, and Br-S-S-Br is identified as the predominant product for the stoichiometric sulfur-bromide compound. S₂Br₂ can also be vaporized at higher temperature for injection into flue gas (Pg. 3889).
In Materials and Analysis, Darco-KB (AC or AC-KB) is identified as an all-purpose activated carbon, and Darco-Hg-LH (AC-LH) is identified as a task-specific activated carbon for mercury capture. Elemental mercury, bromine, and sulfur are identified as materials used in the study (Pg. 3890).
In Products Determination and Leaching Tests, the products distribution of Hg/S₂Br₂ was determined by separating residue S₂Br₂, sulfur, HgBr₂, and HgS. Mercury stabilization on fly ash or activated carbon was evaluated by leaching tests. The tested samples included activated carbon impregnated with 2.5% S₂Br₂ (AC-S₂Br₂), Ash-A with 0.2% S₂Br₂, and Ash-A with 0.2% Br₂ after adsorbing Hg⁰. The AC samples adsorbed about 80 μg/g of Hg⁰ before the soaked solids and extracted liquid were analyzed (Pg. 3891).
Under Results and Discussion, in Role of Fly Ash on Hg⁰ Removal in the Presence of S₂Br₂, adding activated carbon to the gas with S₂Br₂ significantly enhanced Hg⁰ removal. AC-KB alone provided about 5% Hg⁰ removal, while the presence of AC-KB with 1 ppmv S₂Br₂ and 20 g/m³ Ash-A increased Hg⁰ removal to about 73%. Activated carbon with higher BET surface was more effective for Hg⁰ removal in the presence of S₂Br₂ (Pg. 3892).
Regarding the claimed “molar ratio of 1:0.5 to 2.5:1,” the ratio is considered a result-effective variable through routine experimentation. In view of QU’s Br + S + AC sorbent system for mercury capture/stabilization, a person skilled in the art would have adjusted the relative amounts of bromine and sulfur to obtain an operative Br + S + AC sorbent within the claimed ratio of 1:0.5 to 2.5:1, since changing the relative amounts of the known Br and S components would predictably adjust the sorbent composition for mercury capture/stabilization.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the halogen is elemental bromine in liquid form and the sulfur source is elemental sulfur,” the recited elemental forms are considered an obvious source-material selection. Since QU already provides a Br + S + AC sorbent system for mercury capture/stabilization, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use elemental bromine and elemental sulfur to directly provide the known Br and S components without requiring an additional precursor-conversion step, predictably forming the same Br + S sorbent chemistry.
Regarding the limitation “at a temperature between 75 degrees C to 700 degrees C,” the recited temperature is considered a result-effective variable through routine experimentation. QU discloses that S₂Br₂ has low vapor pressure at ambient temperature but can be vaporized at higher temperature, showing that temperature affects Br/S reagent delivery and retention. In view of the volatility of the Br/S reagent system, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to select an operative temperature within the claimed range to provide suitable Br/S contact with AC during formation of the Br + S + AC sorbent.
Advantageously, the Br + S + AC sorbent system disclosed by QU improves mercury capture/stabilization because S₂Br₂ provides sulfur-bromine chemistry for mercury capture, AC improves Hg⁰ removal in the presence of S₂Br₂, and converted mercury is stabilized as HgS (Pg. 3891; Pg. 3892). In view of GILMOUR’s AC sediment-amendment method, a person skilled in the art would have used the Br + S + AC sorbent as the AC amendment because the AC sorbent platform was already used for Hg/MeHg binding in sediment, and adding Br + S functionality to the AC sorbent would predictably improve mercury capture/stabilization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the Br + S + AC sorbent, as disclosed by QU, as the AC amendment in the process for reducing environmental pollutant availability in a solid substance by GILMOUR.
Regarding Claim 2-3, 9-11 and 22, modified GILMOUR makes obvious the process for reducing environmental pollutant availability in a solid substance of Claim 1. QU discloses activated carbon impregnated with 2.5% S₂Br₂ (AC-S₂Br₂) for mercury stabilization after Hg⁰ adsorption (Pg. 3891).
S₂Br₂ has a molecular weight of about 223.92 g/mol, and the bromine portion is 159.80 g/mol. Thus, bromine accounts for about 71.4 wt% of S₂Br₂, so 2.5 wt% S₂Br₂ corresponds to about 1.8 wt% bromine calculated as bromine, which falls within the claimed range of “about 0.1 wt% to about 20 wt%.”
The sulfur portion of S₂Br₂ is 64.12 g/mol, so sulfur accounts for about 28.6 wt% of S₂Br₂. Thus, 2.5 wt% S₂Br₂ corresponds to about 0.72 wt% sulfur, which falls within the claimed range of “about 0.1 wt% to about 15 wt%.”
Regarding Claims 12 and 18, modified GILMOUR makes obvious the process for reducing environmental pollutant availability in a solid substance of Claim 1. GILMOUR discloses using activated carbon to reduce extractable Hg(i) in soils and lower MeHg concentrations in pore waters by sorbing to organic matter in sediments from contaminated sites (Pg. 13002). In Sediment Water Microcosms, four studies are conducted across different sites. Each study tests three sorbent amendments, including activated carbon, which is thoroughly mixed into the sediment by hand. Microcosms are prepared in 4-liter buckets filled with approximately 750 cc of sediment. For most sites, the sorbent is added at 5% by dry sediment weight, while one site tests a range of doses in preparation for a field trial (Pg. 13002). This supports adding the sorbent to a contained solid substance and combining the sorbent with the solid substance (i.e., Claim 12(e) and (f)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed January 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1–3, 7, 9–12, 18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of GILMOUR et al and QU et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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 C. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights