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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 12-18 remain pending in the application, claims 1-7 being withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have addressed every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 05/27/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the ozone efficiency ... was 88%; … a conventional… ozone efficiency was generally not higher than 60% ... In contrast, Conger discloses significantly lower ozone efficiency values… the ozone utilization efficiency of only 35%” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 9, para. 3).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ozone efficiency, specifically ozone utilization efficiency) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner asks for clarification that the disclosed “ozone efficiency”, “ozone utilization efficiency” and “utilization efficiency” are synonymous, and if so, Examiner notes that instant specification p 5 ¶3 supports clarifying and/or reciting such a feature within the claim: “Preferably, the utilization efficiency of the ozone is higher than 80%, more preferably higher than 86%.”
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should amended claim 8 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 8-9 and 12-18 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.
Claims 8 and 12 recite “predetermining a time interval during which a COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) degradation rate k of specific wastewater decreases to 1 as a residence time t1;
…
S4: making the gas-liquid mixture enter the parallel photocatalytic reactor group with a photocatalytic power of 15 kw to 30 kw for a reaction for the residence time t1, wherein the residence time t1 refers to a reaction time of a stage when a Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)the COD degradation rate k is equal to or greater than 1”
It is unclear whether t1 represents the time for k to decrease to 1 (e.g from any value to 1) or measures the time when k = 1 or measures any predetermined residence time in which k > 1.
Examiner also suggests consistency in language for both sections that define t1.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets t1 to define any residence in which k is greater than or equal to 1.
Claim(s) 9, 15, and 17 depend(s) on claim 8 and are also rejected.
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 18 depend(s) on claim 12 and are also rejected.
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 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) 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-2005/0178733-Al, hereinafter Conger in view of USACE(Department Of The Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Engineering and Design Ultraviolet/Chemical Oxidation. Technical Letter No. 1110-1-161. 29 Excerpt. March 1996), hereinafter USACE
Regarding Claims 8 and 12, Conger teaches a process for advanced oxidation treatment of wastewater (“The sub-critical oxidation process of the invention is designed, but not limited, to treating waste materials from industrial and municipal sources… Waste material also includes municipal sewage… In many instances, the waste fluid will contain suspended solids.”, [0053]) by using a multi-stage apparatus (“the oxidative process comprises three oxidation steps” [0036]), the multi-stage apparatus comprising:
a liquid-liquid mixing unit (At least any of the following: Fig. 2 Element 210 or Fig 3 “MIX” or Fig 4 Element 410; “In one preferred embodiment, hydroxyl radicals are formed by combining the waste fluid with hydrogen peroxide. The mixture is then mixed with Fenton's reagent, ozone and/or other reagents that induce hydroxyl radical formation, for example titanium dioxide. The mixture may also be exposed to UV radiation to transform hydrogen peroxide to hydroxyl radicals. In all situations, the formed hydroxyl radical then oxidizes contaminates within the waste fluid” [0017]),
a preheating unit (Alternatively at least Fig. 1 Element 108, Fig. 3 Element 312 or 314 (displayed as “MIX”), or Fig. 6 Element 710; “The waste fluid is contacted with an oxidizing reagent such as hydrogen peroxide and subjected to sub-critical temperature and pressure to oxidize all or part of the waste material”, [0014]),
a gas-liquid mixing unit (Fig. 7 gas inlet 808 and liquid waste inlet 802; “A mixing device for combining the waste fluid and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) with a reagent such as ozone, or other like gaseous material(s), is a device capable of intimately mixing a waste fluid containing H2O2 with ozone gas passing through the fluid” [0020]),
a parallel photocatalytic reactor group (Fig. 9, “Note that any number of different designs for placement of the UV light source may be used in relation to the present invention, as long as the UV light source provides sufficient energy for the transformation of hydrogen peroxide to hydroxyl radicals.”, [0098]),
and an oxidation tower (Fig. 8);
wherein the liquid-liquid mixing unit is used for mixing to-be-treated wastewater and hydrogen peroxide (“waste fluid 206 is mixed with an oxidizing reagent such as H2O2… Pumps 210 facilitates this mixing”, [0064]);
the preheating unit is used for preheating a mixed solution of the to-be-treated wastewater and the hydrogen peroxide (“A mixing vessel 314 is shown for combining the waste stream and oxidant feed, which can be modified with respect to pH and temperature”, [0065]);
the gas-liquid mixing unit is used for mixing ozone at room temperature and the preheated mixed solution of the to-be-treated wastewater and the hydrogen peroxide to form a gas- liquid mixture (Fig. 7 gas inlet 808 and liquid waste inlet 802; “FIG. 7 is an illustrative schematic for an intimate mixing device in accordance with the present invention”, [0046]; “intimate mixing refers to the use of a device or method … mixing of the waste fluid containing hydrogen peroxide with a reagent that facilitates hydroxyl radical formation.”, [0082]; “Hydroxyl radical forming reagent such as ozone”, [0083]);
the parallel photocatalytic reactor group is internally provided with several photocatalytic reactors (Fig. 9 light sources 1006);
Although Conger does not teach one embodiment with all elements connected in sequence, Conger does provide motivation for combination and reordering of embodiments, sequences, and steps as needed in light of the following teachings:
one embodiment (Fig. 6) containing all of the following elements:
Waste (Fig. 6 Element 700), Hydrogen peroxide (Fig. 6 Element 706 and/or “H2O2 or H2O2 and UV or Metal” element), a liquid-liquid mixing component prior to preheating (“an oxidizing agent 706 such as hydrogen peroxide is added to the waste fluid and mixed”, [0071]; “After being mixed with an appropriate oxidant … temperature may be adjusted to maintain it within the range of sub-critical temperature.”, [0072]), preheating (Fig. 6 Element 710), a second oxidant (“H2O2 or H2O2 and UV or Metal” element, [0071]), UV, Oxidation reactor (Fig. 6 Element 702 and/or “Optional increase in retention time” element)
Substitution of an oxidant (Fig. 6 H2O2 or H2O2 and UV or Metal; “Ozone may also be used as an oxidant”, [0071])
Rearrangement of preheating sequence (“sub-critical hydrolysis may occur prior to or after sub-critical oxidation. In some instances, sub-critical hydrolysis and oxidation occur simultaneously”, [0074; “the invention includes a process for hydrolyzing a waste fluid by exposing it to a sub-critical temperature and sub-critical pressure so as to hydrolyze certain constituents of the waste fluid.” [0073])
Rearrangement of photocatalytic reactor group sequence and placement (Fig. 9 UV light insert; “UV light insert for a reactor, is shown. The UV light insert is shaped to sit within a sub-critical oxidation reactor of the present invention. …the UV light insert itself can act as a stand-alone reactor…Note that any number of different designs for placement of the UV light source may be used in relation to the present invention, as long as the UV light source provides sufficient energy for the transformation of hydrogen peroxide to hydroxyl radicals”, [0098]; Fig. 6 Element 708 before Reactor 702). MPEP 2144.04 IV (C) also states “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” and “Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.”
Adaptive variability in rearrangement of oxidation sequence via recirculating and rerouting elements (at least the valves of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; “sub-critical oxidation within the reaction vessel may occur prior to or subsequent to sub-critical oxidation within the centrifuge 302. Appropriate valves 304 are opened or closed to place the reaction vessel upstream or downstream from the continuous flow centrifuge”, [0065]; “sub-critical oxidation may occur in the reaction vessel prior to or subsequent to treatment within the centrifuge.”, [0066]) and
Adaptive retention time optimization as needed (“Retention time within the centrifuge can be modified to facilitate maximal oxidation”, [0063]; Fig. 1 Element 122; Fig. 2 Element 212; Fig. 3 Element 306; Fig. 6 “Optional increase in retention time” element)
Design need for optimization and adaptability (“There is not one reaction or design that through oxidation destruction of contaminates solve every waste water contamination problem. The selection of chemicals and process design for the oxidation of contaminates must be based on the specific waste water characteristics”, [0009]).
Conger also teaches the following process steps:
S1: mixing to-be-treated wastewater and hydrogen peroxide (“hydrogen peroxide is added to the waste fluid…the hydroxyl-based oxidation is performed either using a mixing device …or a sequence using a mixing device”, [0078-0079]);
S2: preheating a mixed solution of the to-be-treated wastewater and the hydrogen peroxide (“preferred mixing devices have the capacity for both temperature, pressure, and mixing speed modification”, [0080]);
S3: mixing ozone at room temperature and the preheated mixed solution of the to- be-treated wastewater and the hydrogen peroxide to form a gas-liquid mixture (“intimate mixing refers to the use of a device or method … mixing of the waste fluid containing hydrogen peroxide with a reagent that facilitates hydroxyl radical formation.”, [0082]; “Hydroxyl radical forming reagent such as ozone”, [0083]; “A mixing device …which allows for passage of the ozone through the hydrogen peroxide-containing waste fluid”, [0080]; alternatively another Conger embodiment: “the process of the invention occurs within a mass transfer mixing device adapted for enhancing and optimizing … the mass transfer of ozone into a waste fluid containing hydrogen peroxide”, [0086]);
S4: making the gas-liquid mixture enter the parallel photocatalytic reactor group for a reaction for a residence time t1 (Fig. 9 Waste in 1000, through UV light sources 1006; supported by the Conger embodiment “the UV light insert itself can act as a stand-alone reactor” [0098]; further motivated by preferred Conger embodiment: “In one preferred embodiment, hydroxyl radicals are formed by combining the waste fluid with hydrogen peroxide. The mixture is then mixed with Fenton's reagent, ozone and/or other reagents … The mixture may also be exposed to UV radiation to transform hydrogen peroxide to hydroxyl radicals. In all situations, the formed hydroxyl radical then oxidizes contaminates within the waste fluid”, [0017]);
S5: making effluent in step S4 enter the oxidation tower (Motivation; Fig. 9 UV light insert; “the UV light insert itself can act as a stand-alone reactor”, [0098]; “any number of different designs for placement of the UV light source may be used”, [0098]; Fig. 6 Element 708 before Reactor 702, thus the effluent of 708 enters reactor 702) for a residence time t2 and then discharging the effluent (any of at least Figs. 3, 6, and 8 discharge oxidation reactor effluent);
Conger is considered analogous art because Conger addresses the same problem of multistage advanced oxidative processes (AOP) for waste treatment and AOP methods for waste treatment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to combine the components of the Conger system, namely the hydrogen peroxide, waste, preheating, mixing device (such as the Fig. 7 device), oxidation reagent ( such as the accepted alternative ozone, Conger [0071]), UV, and oxidation reactor, in the multistage oxidation arrangement taught by Conger in at least Figs. 2 and 6, optimize the method in a way most appropriate for the waste being treated (“The selection of chemicals and process design for the oxidation of contaminates must be based on the specific waste water characteristics”, Conger [0009]), including routine optimization for the result effective variable of degradation rate. By optimizing the oxidation rate and residence time, the system becomes more practical to confront variations in waste contaminants over time or from site to site, and the specifics of the system can be further adjusted for footprint and cost-efficiency needs (“The purpose of carrying out two or three oxidation steps is to treat and eliminate waste material at each step thereby limiting the amount of waste material used in a subsequent oxidation step. Such an approach provides use of energy and oxidation reagents for the overall waste treatment process”, Conger [0036]).
Although Conger does not positively teach that t1 refers to a reaction time of a stage when a COD degradation rate k is equal to or greater than 1, wherein k refers to a decrease of a mass concentration of COD in the wastewater per minute with a unit of mg/(L min), in the presence of UV, Conger does provide motivation for a result-effective variable in light of the following teachings:
t1 attains k> 1 in absence of UV: Example 3. Hydrogen Peroxide and Ozone Achieve Total Reduction in Waste Fluid Levels of Acetone and Acetonitrile: teaches k > 1 in the 7L reactor in the presence of oxidant without the photocatalytic reactors positively recited in the context preliminary reactors tested (Table 2: ΔCOD/ Δ time = k > 1 at at least 40 min, 60 min).
At least the above cited time intervals of Example 3 are predetermined time intervals during which t1 defines a value of k ≥ 1.
UV presences increases hydroxyl radical formation:[0038] “In some embodiments one or more conditions are combined to maximize hydroxyl radical formation in the waste fluid. For example, waste fluid can be combined with H2O2 combined with Fenton's reagent or with ozone gas mixed in the fluid or UV light”
The addition of UV, a known combination within Conger, would have further increased k > 1, as the degradation rate would increase with maximized hydroxyl radical formation.
Although Conger does not positively teach that t2 refers to a reaction time of a stage when the COD degradation rate k is less than 1, wherein k refers to a decrease of a mass concentration of COD in the wastewater per minute with a unit of mg/(L min), the combination of at least a three-fold larger reactor volume and plug flow design suggests that a model oxidation reactor may have longer residence times that the UV reactor and potential for slower degradation rates. Furthermore, Conger does provide motivation for a result-effective variable in light of the following teachings:
[0094]: “Note that mass transfer reactors of the present invention are envisioned to incorporate one of two basic design features: (1) plug flow design where waste fluid moves through the reactor as a unit having little or no shear…” Of the two basic design options for the oxidation reactor, plug flow would minimize turbulence, reducing hydroxyl formation by turbulent mixing. Reduced hydroxyl formation rate corresponds with a slower degradation rate and smaller k.
[0082]: “intimate mixing refers to the use of a device or method that results in effective concentration of hydroxyl radicals within the waste fluid…When entirely mixed, hydroxyl radicals are formed at a faster rate which in turn results in an increased rate of oxidation of organic and inorganic contaminates as compared to bulk addition to the radical forming reagent.”
Fig. 8 and 9 show the relative sizes of the oxidation reactor (Fig. 8) and the UV reactor (Fig. 9). Given the UV reactor group insert is configured to be able to fit at least three UV reactors within the volume of the oxidation reactor, the mixing within the oxidation reactor may form hydroxyl radicals at a slower rate than a smaller volume reactor.
Fig. 8: The larger volume and plug flow nature of the oxidation reactor allow for optimum mass transfer based on waste water characteristics”. It would be routine to optimize the degradation rate of the oxidation tower to suit the needs of the treatment system footprint, costs, and waste water characteristics.
As the degradation rate of the oxidation tower is a variable that can be modified, among others, by optimizing the reaction time, precise reaction time would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed reaction time of 20-360 mins cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the reaction time in the method of modified Conger to obtain the optimal wastewater treatment condition since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. By optimizing the oxidation rate and residence time, the system becomes more practical to confront variations in waste contaminants over time or from site to site, and the specifics of the system can be further adjusted for footprint and cost-efficiency needs (“The purpose of carrying out two or three oxidation steps is to treat and eliminate waste material at each step thereby limiting the amount of waste material used in a subsequent oxidation step. Such an approach provides use of energy and oxidation reagents for the overall waste treatment process”, Conger [0036]).
While Conger does not positively teach the effective volume of the oxidation tower is 5-50 times the sum of the effective volumes of the photocatalytic reactors in the parallel photocatalytic reactor group, Conger does illustrate that at least three photocatalytic reactors (Fig 9 Element 1006) fit within the volume of the oxidation reactor (Fig. 8).
MPEP 2144.05 (I) states “"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness."
MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A) states “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, that the Conger volume ratio of at least three photocatalytic reactors to each oxidation tower would lead to predictable result where proportions are so close to the claim proportions that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Conger is silent on the wattage of the photocatalytic device.
However, USACE teaches “MPML generate a broad spectrum … 360-370 rim, 300-310 nm, and 250-270 nm ranges. … between 190-240 nm (28).” (p 26 Sec 4.6.2.2, Medium Pressure Mercury Lamp = MPML).
“Ozone absorbs UV radiation well at a wavelength above 253.7 nm…hydrogen peroxide … at 200 nm which corresponds to a medium-pressure UV lamps… medium-pressure UV lamps are normally utilized in UV/Hydrogen peroxide systems to enhance hydroxyl radical generation(35)” (p 2 Sec 4.2.2.4 ¶1).
In particular, USACE teaches, “In a multichamber reactor, as more chambers are used, the flow regime will approach that of plug flow reactor. One 30 kW medium pressure high-intensity lamp … requires a smaller reactor and much less space.” (p 20 Sec 4.6.1.4 ¶2).
USACE is analogous because USACE addresses the problems of Engineering and Design needs for Ultraviolet/Chemical Oxidation (USACE Title).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the broad-spectrum medium pressure UV lamp of USACE in the Conger system, given Conger is a combined UV/Ozone/Peroxide system, and a broader spectrum is mor likely to improve reaction efficiency for both peroxide and ozone, such as “ medium-pressure UV lamps are normally utilized in UV/Hydrogen peroxide systems to enhance hydroxyl radical generation(35)” (USACE p 2 Sec 4.2.2.4 ¶1). In particular, a medium pressure lamp of 30 kW would be spatially advantageous, requiring “a smaller reactor and less space” (USACE p 20 Sec 4.6.1.4 ¶2).
Regarding Claim 9 and 13, Conger teaches a preheating temperature in step S2 encompasses 50-65°C (“The sub-critical temperature is …most preferably between ambient and between 100° C”, [0014]).
MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A) states “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to optimize the preferred temperature range for the temperature best suited to oxidization of the waste of Conger, as motivated by Conger (“There is not one reaction or design that through oxidation destruction of contaminates solve every waste water contamination problem. The selection of chemicals and process design for the oxidation of contaminates must be based on the specific waste water characteristics”, Conger [0011]). Doing so improves efficacy of the system.
Regarding Claim 14, While Conger is silent on t1 in the parallel photocatalytic reactor group in step S4, Example 3 teaches that in the model reactor, k > 1 between at least 30-60 min (Table 2: ΔCOD/ Δ time). The combination of UV to the model system would increase k as a result effective variable.
While Conger is silent on t2 in the oxidation tower in step S5 is 20-360 min, the combination of at least a three-fold larger reactor volume and plug flow design suggests that a model oxidation reactor may have longer residence times that the UV reactor and potential for slower degradation rates. It would be routine to optimize the degradation rate of the oxidation tower to suit the needs of the treatment system footprint, costs, and waste water characteristics.
MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A) states “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, for the Conger system to be routinely optimized for residence times and degradation rates best suited to the waste waters of Conger. By optimizing the oxidation rate and residence time, the system becomes more practical to confront variations in waste contaminants over time or from site to site, and the specifics of the system can be further adjusted for footprint and cost-efficiency needs (“The purpose of carrying out two or three oxidation steps is to treat and eliminate waste material at each step thereby limiting the amount of waste material used in a subsequent oxidation step. Such an approach provides use of energy and oxidation reagents for the overall waste treatment process”, Conger [0036]).
Regarding Claims 15-16 an embodiment of Conger teaches the parallel photocatalytic reactor group is disposed outside of the oxidation tower and connected to the oxidation tower so as to collect the effluent in step S4 into a bottom of the oxidation tower.
(Motivation; Fig. 9 UV light insert; “the UV light insert itself can act as a stand-alone reactor”, [0098]; “any number of different designs for placement of the UV light source may be used”, [0098]; Fig. 6 Element 708 before Reactor 702) for a residence time t2 and then discharging the effluent (any of at least Figs. 3, 6, and 8 discharge oxidation reactor effluent)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to combine the components of the Conger system, namely UV and oxidation reactor, in the multistage oxidation arrangement taught by Conger in at least Fig 6, optimize the method in a way most appropriate for the waste being treated (“The selection of chemicals and process design for the oxidation of contaminates must be based on the specific waste water characteristics”, Conger [0009]), including routine optimization for the result effective variable of degradation rate. By optimizing the oxidation rate and residence time, the system becomes more practical to confront variations in waste contaminants over time or from site to site, and the specifics of the system can be further adjusted for footprint and cost-efficiency needs (“The purpose of carrying out two or three oxidation steps is to treat and eliminate waste material at each step thereby limiting the amount of waste material used in a subsequent oxidation step. Such an approach provides use of energy and oxidation reagents for the overall waste treatment process”, Conger [0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17-18 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 if
rewritten in independent form 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:
Claims 17-18 recite “the residence time t1 in the parallel photocatalytic reactor group in step S4 is 15-30 min, and the residence time t2 in the oxidation tower in step S5 is 105-210 min”
The underlined passages above are allowable aspects of the claim.
Support for the allowable aspects of the claim may be found in original specification p 13.
The importance of these aspects to the inventions can be summarized as:
Based on the Examiner’s reading of the original disclosure, the combined parameters seems to allow improved utilization efficiency and reduced power consumption of an ozone generator.
Prior art relevant to Claims 17-18 include the following:
Conger in view of USACE teaches a majority of limitations recited in Claim 17-18;
An embodiment of Conger teaches “This Example illustrates that high levels of dissolved acetone and acetonitrile in a liquid chemical waste can be destroyed in less than an hour and often within 3-15 minutes… compositions of the present invention provide a vast improvement for the oxidation of contaminates over other conventional technologies which take hours to oxidize much smaller amounts of contaminates.” [0118].
Conger is silent on t2 ≥105 min.
While USACE teaches “HRT depends on different parameters … on the basis of applied UV energy and oxidant dosage.. the residence time is not the key design variable in sizing the UV/Hydroxide system.” (USACE p 4 Sec 4.2.2.6) and “the reactor should be designed
with batch volumes and treatment times that allow for continuous operation in order to reduce the number of lamp starts and stops.” (USACE p 6 ¶ 3), USACE does not quantitatively suggest the volume, power, and time combination of Claims 17-18 as a design which would allow for continuous operation.
In light of Conger teaching a faster reaction time is a vast improvement over technologies that take hours to oxidize, narrowing the t2 range to 105-210 min is not obvious and would change the ability for Conger to function with preferably reduced reaction times as it is originally taught.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fahmi et al. "Improvement of DOC removal by multi-stage AOP-biological treatment" Chemosphere 50 (2003) 1043–1048. Teaches multistage AOP treatment
Muruganandham, M et al. “Recent Developments in Homogeneous Advanced Oxidation Processes for Water and Wastewater Treatment” Hindawi Publishing Corporation, International Journal of Photoenergy,Volume 2014, Article ID 821674, 21 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/821674. Teaches multistage AOP treatment
Costello, R.C. Distillation Part 1 – Packed Towers vs. Tray (Plate) Towers, COSTELLO. https://rccostello.com/wordpress/distillation/distillation-part-1-packed-towers-vs-tray-plate-towers/. Published 11/16/2016. Accessed 2/6/2025. Teaches oxidation towers.
R. Hao et al. "Cooperative removal of SO2 and NO by using a method of UV-heat/H2O2
oxidation combined with NH4OH-(NH4)2SO3 dual-area absorption" Chemical Engineering Journal 365 (2019) 282-290. Teaches UV/peroxide based AOP treatment
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm EST.
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, Ben Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773