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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejection.
On page 10 of the Remarks section as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant summarizes the previous Office Action and the amendments made in the current response.
On page 11, Applicant discusses the previous 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) prior art rejection of independent Claim 1 using Shen et al., (“Shen 2”, GB 2532433). Applicant argues that Shen 2 does not disclose the newly added limitations to the claim, specifically "the functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups and positively charged or negatively charged when in aqueous solution" and "the interaction between the chelating groups of the functionalized polymer and the first charged species includes a covalent interaction". Applicant argues that Shen 2 discloses a process using “unmodified” polyethyleneimine (PEI), instead of a “functionalized” polymer, specifically “a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups”, as presently claimed. First, the Examiner notes that Shen 2 still discloses the added limitation "the interaction between the chelating groups of the functionalized polymer and the first charged species includes a covalent interaction" because Shen 2 discloses chelation occurring between the polymer and the first charged species, (See page 42, lines 22-24 or See page 60, lines 9-11, Shen 2), and chelation is known to involve a covalent interaction, (As evidenced by “Chelation”, in Wikipedia, chelation is known to include at least a covalent interaction/bond between the ligand and the metal of interest; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation, obtained from Web on 1/27/2026).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner notes that Shen 2 does not disclose the newly added limitation specifically “a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups”, as presently claimed. In this case, the Examiner finds that previously used secondary reference Porath, (US 5,185,313), discloses this feature instead, (See column 3, lines 23-45, See Fig. 1A, See column 3, lines 46-65, and See column 8, lines 20-22, Porath). Thus, this remark by Applicant that Shen 2 is not a “functionalized polymer” is moot since Porath discloses the additional limitations associated with this limitation instead.
On pages 12-13, Applicant argues that Shen 2 discloses “electrostatic interaction”, and argues that the capture of metallic ions is by a polymer-surfactant aggregate (PSA), not the polymer itself. Applicant asserts that any “selectivity” is driven by electrostatic considerations, and properties of the aggregate/metallic ions. Applicant continues on to argue that the claims require a functionalized polymer with chelating groups and the interaction between the chelating groups and the first charged species includes a covalent interaction that forms a selective polymer-charged species complex. The Examiner notes again that Shen 2 explicitly discloses chelating occurring, (See page 42, lines 22-24 or See page 60, lines 9-11, Shen 2), which requires a covalent interaction or bond. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Porath discloses further using functionalized chelating groups, (See column 3, lines 23-45, See Fig. 1A, See column 3, lines 46-65, and See column 8, lines 20-22, Porath). The Examiner takes the position that selectivity is not just drawn from electrostatic considerations as asserted by Applicant but also from the chelation explicitly occurring as stated in Shen 2. The Examiner notes that Shen 2 explicitly states that the PEI itself forms complexes with the metal ions, (See page 42, lines 22-24, Shen 2), so it is not just a PSA as characterized by Applicant. The Examiner finds these remarks unpersuasive as a result.
On pages 13-16, Applicant continues to elaborate on electrostatic PSA adsorption, implying that Shen 2 solely relies upon this sort of adsorption, and provides diagrams on the alleged differences between Shen 2 and the current invention. The Examiner notes again that Applicant has not addressed the passage in Shen 2 which was previously claim mapped to in which the PEI (polymer) itself chelates with metal ions, (See page 42, lines 22-24, Shen 2), which as evidenced by Wikipedia, is itself a covalent interaction between the metal and the ligand of the polymer. The Examiner continues to find Applicant’s remarks here unpersuasive. The rejection of dependent Claims 6-9 stands as the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection of independent Claim 1 using Shen 2 and Porath in a 103 prior art rejection.
On pages 16-17, Applicant begins arguments against the 103 prior art rejection of independent Claim 1 using Shen et al., (“Shen 1”, “Removal of metallic ions at the parts per billion level from aqueous solutions using the polymer-surfactant aggregate process”, Journal of Water Process Engineering, vol. 30, 1 August 2019, 100486, 4 total pages), and Shen 2. Here, Applicant briefly discusses the previous Declaration filed June 24, 2025, in which the Examiner concluded that the results provided therein were not necessarily unexpected, and pointed to Shen 2 in which removal of one metal ion over another was higher, thus more selective. Applicant indicates further remarks are provided regarding these discussions in a newly filed Declaration filed January 7, 2026. Then, Applicant argues that Shen 1 does not disclose that its polymer is functionalized to include chelating groups, and that it does not provide a covalent interaction between said groups and the first charged species. Again, the Examiner notes that Shen 1 discloses chelation occurring, (See page 2, column 2, “2.22. Filtration of solutions and total carbon and metallic ion concentration measurements”; “separate polymer-surfactant precipitates with bound metallic ions from the free metallic ions, surfactant monomers and free polymers”, and See page 2, “3. Results and discussion”: “a fixed number of ethyleneimine monomers are bound directly to one cadmium ion” and See page 2, “some bind onto the functional groups of polymer ‘strings’ via a chelation mechanism”), and that chelation itself is based on a covalent interaction which is inherent, As evidenced by “Chelation”, in Wikipedia, chelation is known to include at least a covalent interaction/bond between the ligand and the metal of interest; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation, obtained from Web on 1/27/2026).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner also notes that while Shen 1 does not disclose the newly added limitation specifically “a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups”, as presently claimed. In this case, the Examiner finds that previously used secondary reference Porath, (US 5,185,313), discloses this feature instead, (See column 3, lines 23-45, See Fig. 1A, See column 3, lines 46-65, and See column 8, lines 20-22, Porath). Thus, this remark by Applicant that Shen 2 is not a “functionalized polymer” is moot since Porath discloses the additional limitations associated with this limitation instead.
On pages 17-18, Applicant continues to assert that in the new Declaration that the binding mechanism of the instant application/invention involves chelation and complexation, which is allegedly different from the selectivity implied by purely electrostatic interaction as Applicant characterizes the Office Action. The Examiner notes again that Shen 1 does not just disclose electrostatic interaction (PSA) and points to Shen 1 where it states that two mechanisms are used, one of which is chelation, (See page 2, “some bind onto the functional groups of polymer ‘strings’ via a chelation mechanism”). The Examiner also notes that Shen 2 explicitly discloses chelation occurring and is combined with Shen 1, (See page 42, lines 22-24, Shen 2). The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive for these reasons because both Shen references rely upon chelation which require covalent interactions/bonds.
Then, Applicant argues that in the Declaration, choosing the functional group from (N, S, O, C, P) has a significant effect on metal selectivity. The Examiner notes here that the primary references already disclose this feature already, (“polymer comprising ionizable groups such as a polymer that is positively or neutral charged…polyethyleneimine (PEI)”; PEI has an amine group which has carbon and nitrogen, Shen 2, or “binding ratio between amine monomer in PEI and Cd(II) ion”, See 3. Results and discussion”; amine has carbon and nitrogen, Shen 1). The Examiner finds this note unpersuasive since it is already known in the art, and that Applicant does not distinguish between specific atoms in the indicated group.
Then, on pages 18-20, Applicant points to the new Declaration, arguing that the result is still unexpected because two experiments were conducted in which the first experiment has the metal solution prepared, the polymer added first, followed by the surfactant, and the second experiment has the polymer and surfactant premixed to form a PSA and the metal solution is added after the aggregate was already formed. Applicant notes that in both experiments for unmodified PEI, the recoveries are “essentially unchanged between the two orders of addition”, alleging that it is consistent with a charge-driven PSA uptake mechanism. Applicant then states for functionalized polymer 2-PPEI, the metal uptake drops by approximately half when the PSA is pre-formed, concluding that once the polymer is functionalized the mechanism shifts from purely charge-driven PSA uptake to affinity-based polymer binding followed by surfactant-assisted removal. The Examiner notes that whatever mechanism is used to bind these metal ions, the table shows that one metal ion is selectively bound to the polymer aggregate over the other. Furthermore, the functionalized polymer used in the experiments is only one of many possible functionalized polymers to be used. There is no evidence provided that the selectivity of the claimed invention is improved or better and unexpected versus the whole scope of possibilities for PEI and its functionalized groups available. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Shen 1 clearly shows two types of interactions are explicitly used, the electrostatic interactions, and the chelation interactions. Shen 2 also demonstrates clear chelation occurring. Applicant has not demonstrated that these references do not provide chelation or that their chelation is selectively worse than the claimed invention. The Examiner notes that it is not hindsight knowledge to modify the inventions of Shen 1 or Shen 2 for selectivity or chelation when they each already explicitly discuss selectivity of metal ions and chelation effects. The Examiner finds these remarks unpersuasive.
On pages 20-24, Applicant continues to argue against the previous rejection, stating that the demonstrated “competitive adsorption” between zinc and magnesium ions, and characterized by Shen 2 as “a degree of selectivity between metal ions”, is not “due to polymer-imposed selectivity” but only “intrinsic cation chemistry”. Applicant argues that “Zn2+ typically outcompetes Mg2+ for PSA association” and points to various characteristics of each and additional citations. Applicant then discusses a second conducted set of experiments, noting that there was not much difference or selectivity for either metal for the unmodified PEI, whereas the functionalized polymers allegedly display very strong metal ion selectivity. Applicants points to the difference in removal for copper and iron ions and copper and zinc ions for both unmodified and functionalized PEI polymers. Applicant argues that the difference in removal of zinc and magnesium for Shen 2 is only due to inherency of the metal ion pairs, not the polymers themselves, while the conducted experiments demonstrate differences in removal of metal are due to the polymers, not the inherency of the metal ions themselves. The Examiner notes here that Applicant ignores the explicit statements from Shen 2 which state “high metal selectivity” on page 2, and “a degree of selectivity between metal ions” on page 41 of Shen 2. The Examiner notes that Applicant has not established that there is no metal ion inherency difference in the metal ions discussed in the experiments, and Applicant has also not addressed the wide variety of functionalized PEI polymers that could be selected to remove metal ions, rather choosing to focus on one isolated functionalized example. The Examiner cannot conclude based on the experiments provided that the results would be unexpected as asserted by Applicant. The Examiner reiterates that regardless of the direction of affinity, the fact remains that the disclosed polymer of Shen 2 has higher affinity or selectivity for zinc over magnesium, and the claimed invention does not specify how this affinity occurs, or claim a specific pair of metal ions rather than a very broad category. The Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here unpersuasive. The rejections of dependent Claims 2-6, 10-14, 16-19 stand as the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection of independent Claim 1 using Shen 1, Shen 2 and Porath in this 103 prior art rejection.
On pages 25-28, Applicant argues against the combination of secondary reference Porath, (US 5,185,313), with Shen 2 and Shen 1 in the 103 prior art rejections above, regarding dependent Claim 5. Here, Applicant argues that Porath does not make obvious each and every feature of independent Claim 1. Here, the Examiner notes that Porath is relied upon in the rejections of Claim 1 to provide a functional group on the polymer for chelating said metal ions, (See column 3, lines 23-45, See Fig. 1A, See column 3, lines 46-65, and See column 8, lines 20-22, Porath). Second, Applicant argues that Porath is not concerned with a process to remove metal ions form an aqueous solution. The Examiner notes that Porath explicitly discloses adsorbing “heavy metals” in the Abstract, and “methods for adsorption of heavy metals from water solutions”, (See column 1, lines 6-9, Porath). The Examiner finds Applicant’s remark unpersuasive here. Applicant also argues that Porath does not disclose selectively removing a first charged species from a plurality of charged species. This statement is also unpersuasive because Porath explicitly states “according to a certain aspect of the invention with only nitrogen in the ligand, a high affinity for mercury, cadmium and copper will be reached, but a low affinity for iron”, (See column 1, lines 46-51, Porath). As a result, the Examiner disagrees with these characterizations by Applicant.
Then, on pages 25-26, Applicant argues that Porath uses an insoluble adsorbent, not a soluble polymer as in the present invention. The Examiner notes here that it is not claimed whether the composition or polymer is soluble versus insoluble. Furthermore, the Examiner indicates that Porath uses the same polymer as Shen 1 or Shen 2, (See column 8, lines 20-23, Porath), and also states its polymer material can be either insoluble or soluble, (See column 11, lines 56-68, column 12, lines 15-18; or See column 1, lines 24-29, Porath). The Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here unpersuasive.
Applicant then states that there would have been no motivation to combine Porath with Shen 1 or Shen 2. However, the Examiner notes that Applicant has not addressed the specific motivation already provided in the previous Action or current Action regarding combining Porath. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Porath discloses the same elements as demonstrated above that Applicant alleges are not present. The Examiner finds this remark also unpersuasive as a result.
The remainder of Applicant’s remarks here are moot since they do not provide any more specific arguments against the previous rejections used.
On pages 27-28, Applicant discusses newly added dependent Claims 26 & 27, which have been addressed in the prior art rejection section below and rejected.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed June 24, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims as set forth in the last Office action because:
In the Declaration filed, on pages 1-2, the inventor summarizes his background and experience. Then, on page 2, the inventor asserts that the results of the claimed invention are unexpected and that there is no expectation of success using the references cited. The inventor states that Shen 2 uses electrostatic adsorption onto a polymer-surfactant aggregate (PSA) formed from an ionizable polymer and an ionic surfactant and that the claimed invention uses a functionalized polymer comprising chelating groups that have a greater binding affinity to the first charged species over the at least one further charged species and wherein the interaction between the chelating groups of the functionalized polymer and the first charged species comprises a covalent interaction. The inventor concludes that Shen 2 relates only to electrostatic PSA adsorption, while the claimed invention relates to affinity binding on the polymer, then separation, in which chelation and complexation is also included. Here, the Examiner notes that Shen 2 explicitly discloses chelation occurring between the polymer and the first charged species, (See page 42, lines 22-24 or See page 60, lines 9-11, Shen 2), and chelation is known to involve a covalent interaction, (As evidenced by “Chelation”, in Wikipedia, chelation is known to include at least a covalent interaction/bond between the ligand and the metal of interest; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation, obtained from Web on 1/27/2026).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner is unpersuaded by this characterization when Shen 2 explicitly states chelation occurs. The inventor then states that choosing the functional group from (N, S, O, C, P), has a significant effect on metal selectivity. The Examiner finds that PEI inherently has C and N in its monomer groups. The Examiner finds this statement unpersuasive.
Next, the inventor describes conducting two sets of experiments using the same concentrations and reaction parameters as in Shen 2, the first of which the metal solution was prepared, and the polymer was added first, followed by the surfactant, and in the second set, the polymer and surfactant were premixed to form the PS”A, the metal was added after this PSA was formed. The inventor tested both unmodified PEI and functionalized 2-PPEI, which act upon the metal ions of Zn and Mg. The inventor finds that using the functionalized form of PEI (2-PPEI) when using a pre-formed PSA, results in a drop in the recovery rate of metal. The inventor concludes this result is due to the shift from electrostatic PSA uptake to affinity-based polymer binding followed by surfactant-assisted removal. Here, the Examiner notes that whatever mechanism is used to bind these metal ions, the table shows that one metal ion is selectively bound to the polymer aggregate over the other. Furthermore, the functionalized polymer used in the experiments is only one of many possible functionalized polymers to be used. There is no evidence provided that the selectivity of the claimed invention is improved or better and unexpected versus the whole scope of possibilities for PEI and its functionalized groups available. Furthermore, the Examiner proposes that the affinity of the functional groups present in 2-PPEI to the metal ions present changes as well, not just contingent on electrostatic attraction. The Examiner finds these observations unpersuasive as a result.
Next, the inventor states that the “alleged preferential binding” of Zn versus Mg is due to the cations themselves, not the selectivity of the polymer. The inventor discusses a second conducted set of experiments, noting that there was not much difference or selectivity for either metal for the unmodified PEI, whereas the functionalized polymers allegedly display very strong metal ion selectivity. The inventor points to the difference in removal for copper and iron ions and copper and zinc ions for both unmodified and functionalized PEI polymers. Additionally, the inventor notes that the Cu:Fe selectivity is much higher for the functionalized polymer 2-PPEI versus unmodified PEI. The inventor also finds that the Cu:Zn selectivity is much higher for the functionalized polymer 2-PPEI versus unmodified PEI. The inventor argues that the difference in removal of zinc and magnesium for Shen 2 is only due to inherency of the metal ion pairs, not the polymers themselves, while the conducted experiments demonstrate differences in removal of metal are due to the polymers, not the inherency of the metal ions themselves. The inventor concludes that Shen 2 is directed to just an electrostatic PSA adsorption in contrast to the present invention which relates to affinity-based polymer binding, et cetera. The Examiner notes here that Shen 2 explicitly discloses “high metal selectivity” on page 2, and “a degree of selectivity between metal ions” on page 41 of Shen 2. The Examiner notes that the inventor has not established that there is no metal ion inherency difference in the metal ions discussed in the experiments, and Applicant has also not addressed the wide variety of functionalized PEI polymers that could be selected to remove metal ions, rather choosing to focus on one isolated functionalized example. The Examiner cannot conclude based on the experiments provided that the results would be unexpected as asserted. The Examiner reiterates that regardless of the direction of affinity, the fact remains that the disclosed polymer of Shen 2 has higher affinity or selectivity for zinc over magnesium, and the claimed invention does not specify how this affinity occurs, or claim a specific pair of metal ions rather than a very broad category. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that previous secondary reference Porath has been combined with Shen 2 and/or Shen 1 to provide a functionalized polymer with chelating groups different from the polymers used for experimentation by the inventor. The Examiner notes that Porath explicitly states that “according to a certain aspect of the invention with only nitrogen in the ligand, a high affinity for mercury, cadmium and copper will be reached, but a low affinity for iron”, (See column 1, lines 46-51, Porath). For these reasons, the Examiner finds the inventor’s conclusions unpersuasive.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al., (“Shen 2”, GB2532433A), as evidenced by “Chelation”, (“Chelation”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation, obtained from Web on 1/27/2026), in view of Porath, (US 5,185,313).
Claims 1 & 5-9 are directed to a process for selectively removing a first charged species, a method type invention group.
Regarding Claims 1 & 5-9, Shen 2 discloses a process for selectively removing a first charged species from a plurality of charged species in aqueous solution, (See page 5, lines 19-21), which process comprises: treating a solution with a functionalised polymer and an ionic surfactant, (See page 5, lines 20-22, See page 9, lines 23-34, page 10, lines 1-3), wherein the solution comprises said plurality of charged species dissolved in an aqueous solvent, (See page 5, lines 19-23), wherein the plurality of charged species comprises the first charged species and at least one further charged species which is different from the first charged species, (See page 11, lines 3-11; See page 12, lines 19-24), wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are metallic ions of the same polarity, (See page 11, lines 3-11; See page 12, lines 19-24; both are positively charged), wherein the functionalised polymer is a hydrophilic polymer, (“Polyethyleneimine (PEI) is a hydrophilic cationic polymer”, See page 5, Millipore Sigma evidentiary reference), which comprises chelating groups that have a greater binding affinity to the first charged species over the at least one further charged species, (See Figure 8, affinity for removing zinc (Zn) is higher than magnesium (Mg), See page 6, lines 29-31, See page 41, lines 20-27), wherein each chelating group comprises at least two donor atoms, which are the same or different, that are capable of bonding to the first charged species, the donor atoms being selected from carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulphur, (“”polymer comprising ionizable groups such as a polymer that is positively or neutral charged…polyethyleneimine (PEI)”; PEI has an amine group which has carbon and nitrogen), and wherein the functionalized polymer is a positively charged or a negatively charged polymer when in aqueous solution, (See page 9, lines 3-15 and/or See page 9, lines 23-34, page 10, lines 1-3), wherein the interaction between the chelating groups of the functionalized polymer and the first charged species includes a covalent interaction, (As evidenced by “Chelation”, in Wikipedia, chelation is known to include at least a covalent interaction/bond between the ligand and the metal of interest; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation, obtained from Web on 1/27/2026).
PNG
media_image2.png
322
1164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shen 2 does not disclose that the functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups.
Porath discloses a process for removing a first charged species in an aqueous solution where its functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups, (See column 3, lines 23-45, See Fig. 1A, See column 3, lines 46-65, and See column 8, lines 20-22, Porath). Additional features of this embodiment are included as part of the overall combination and are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Shen 2 by incorporating that the functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups as in Porath in order to provide a ligand that is “especially effective to bind heavy metals”, (See column 2, lines 2-3, Porath), because “the adsorption capacity can be strengthened so that more of one metal ion is adsorbed upon a given amount of adsorbent as well as the selectivity also can be strengthened by inserting further coordinating atoms, especially N” in which “the strengthening will be markedly more effective if these atoms are inserted so that…6-rings can be formed together with the coordinating atoms”, (See column 3, lines 9-15, Porath).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 5: A process according to claim 1 wherein: (A) the functionalised polymer comprises functionalised units of formula (X), functionalised units of formula (Y), and/or functionalised units of formula (Z)
PNG
media_image3.png
300
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and optionally further comprises unfunctionalised units of formula (V) and/or unfunctionalised units of formula (W), (optional so not required),
PNG
media_image4.png
202
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
optionally wherein the functionalised polymer comprises N-(2-picolyl)-substituted PEI; or (B) the functionalised polymer comprises functionalised units of formula (I), and/or functionalised units of formula (II), (See Fig. 1A, or See column 3, lines 46-65, Porath), and optionally further comprises unfunctionalised units of formula (III), (optional so not required),
PNG
media_image5.png
180
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
optionally wherein the functionalised polymer comprises N-(2-picolyl)-substituted PAA, (optional so not required).
Claim 6: A process according to claim 1 wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are positively charged species, (See page 11, lines 7-11, Shen 2; mercury, copper, silver considered noble metal and other metals listed as a combination thereof, which are known to be positively charged), optionally metal cations, (optional so not required), and the ionic surfactant is an anionic surfactant, optionally wherein the ionic surfactant is sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), (See page 50, lines 17-25).
Claim 7: A process according to claim 1 wherein: the first charged species is a first noble metal cation and the at least one further charged species comprises one or more metal cations other than the first noble metal cation, (See page 11, lines 7-11, Shen 2; mercury, copper, silver considered noble metal and other metals listed as a combination thereof), optionally wherein the at least one further charged species comprises one or more further noble metal cations other than the first noble metal cation, (optional so not required); or the first charged species is a first platinum group metal cation and the at least one further charged species comprises one or more metal cations other than the first platinum group metal cation, optionally wherein the at least one further charged species comprises one or more further platinum group metal cations other than the first platinum group metal cation, (optional so not required); or the first charged species is a copper cation and the at least one further charged species comprises an iron cation, or wherein the first charged species is an iron cation and the at least one further charged species comprises a copper cation, (not selected based on conjunction “or”).
Claim 8: A process according to claim 1 wherein the first charged species is Cu" and the at least one further charged species comprises Fe3", and the solution treated with the functionalised polymer and the ionic surfactant has a pH of less than or equal to 3, (See page 27, lines 1-3; the ph can be selected from 2 to 13, overlapping from 2 to 3, anticipating at this range), optionally a pH of from 0.5 to 2.5, (optional so not required).
Claim 9: A process according to claim 1 wherein: (i) the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are negatively charged species, optionally metal-containing anions, (See page 27, lines 7-11); and optionally (ii) the ionic surfactant is a cationic surfactant, (See page 27, lines 7-11), and (iii) the functionalised polymer is a negatively charged polymer when in aqueous solution, (See page 23, lines 25-30, See page 42, line 5).
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-14, 16-19, 22, 24, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al., (“Shen 1”, “Removal of metallic ions at the parts per billion level from aqueous solutions using the polymer-surfactant aggregate process”, Journal of Water Process Engineering, vol. 30, 1 August 2019, 100486, 4 total pages), in view of Shen et al., (“Shen 2”, GB2532433A), in further view of Porath, (US 5,185,313).
Claims 1-6, 10-14, 16-19, 26 & 27 are directed to a process for selectively removing a first charged species, a method type invention group.
Regarding Claims 1-6, 10-14, 16-19, 26 & 27, Shen 1 discloses a process for selectively removing a first charged species from a plurality of charged species in aqueous solution, (See page 2, column 2, “2.22. Filtration of solutions and total carbon and metallic ion concentration measurements”; “The purpose was to separate polymer-surfactant precipitates with bound metallic ions from the free metallic ions, surfactant monomers and free polymers in solution”), which process comprises: treating a solution with a functionalised polymer and an ionic surfactant, (See page 2, See “2.2. Methods: 2.2.1. Solution preparation”; “Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate (SDS)”, “2.1. Materials”, “Polymer, surfactant and metallic ion solutions were prepared…a calculated amount of metallic ions was added first…PEI solution was added after…Finally, the surfactant solution was added…The solution was stirred”), wherein the solution comprises said plurality of charged species dissolved in an aqueous solvent, (“deionized water…diluted with deionized water”, “2.2.1. Solution preparation”, and See page 2, See “2.2. Methods: 2.2.1. Solution preparation”; “Polymer, surfactant and metallic ion solutions were prepared…a calculated amount of metallic ions was added first…PEI solution was added after…Finally, the surfactant solution was added…The solution was stirred”), wherein the plurality of charged species comprises the first charged species and at least one further charged species which is different from the first charged species, (See page 2, “2. Materials and methods”; “Cadmium sulphate and sodium chloride”; cadmium, sulphate, sodium and chloride are all different charged species), wherein the first charged species is a metallic ion, (“metallic ion solution”, “2.2.1 Solution preparation”, and “3. Results and discussion”, “concentrations of Cd(II)”), and wherein the functionalised polymer is a hydrophilic polymer, (“Polyethyleneimine (PEI) is a hydrophilic cationic polymer”, See page 5, Millipore Sigma evidentiary reference), which comprises chelating groups, (See page 2, column 2, “2.22. Filtration of solutions and total carbon and metallic ion concentration measurements”; “separate polymer-surfactant precipitates with bound metallic ions from the free metallic ions, surfactant monomers and free polymers”, and See page 2, “3. Results and discussion”: “a fixed number of ethyleneimine monomers are bound directly to one cadmium ion” and See page 2, “some bind onto the functional groups of polymer ‘strings’ via a chelation mechanism”) over the at least one further charged species, wherein each chelating group comprises at least two donor atoms, which are the same or different, that are capable of bonding to the first charged species, the donor atoms being selected from carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulphur, (“binding ratio between amine monomer in PEI and Cd(II) ion”, See 3. Results and discussion”; amine has carbon and nitrogen), and wherein the functionalized polymer is a positively charged or a negatively charged polymer when in aqueous solution, (See page 2, “2.2.1. Solution preparation”, “The working pH value was 4.5 to ensure the PEI had a positive charge” and “PEI solution was added…diluted with deionized water”), wherein the interaction between the chelating groups of the functionalized polymer and the first charged species includes a covalent interaction, (As evidenced by “Chelation”, in Wikipedia, chelation is known to include at least a covalent interaction/bond between the ligand and the metal of interest; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation, obtained from Web on 1/27/2026).
PNG
media_image2.png
322
1164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shen 1 does not disclose wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are metallic ions of the same polarity and the chelating groups have a greater binding affinity to the first charge species.
Shen 2 discloses a process wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are metallic ions of the same polarity, (See page 11, lines 3-11; See page 12, lines 19-21; both are positively charged) and the chelating groups have a greater binding affinity to the first charge species, (See Figure 8, affinity for removing zinc (Zn) is higher than magnesium (Mg), See page 6, lines 29-31, See page 41, lines 20-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Shen 1 by incorporating wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are metallic ions of the same polarity and the chelating groups have a greater binding affinity to the first charge species as in Shen 2 because “sequential removal and recovery of…heavy metal ions present in the system…is caused by the competitive adsorption between metal ions” and “if the dosages of polymer-surfactant and recovery agent is optimised for one particular amount of heavy metal in the solution, a relatively high purity of this concentrated heavy metal ion can be attained”, (See page 4, lines 20-21, page 5, lines 1-2, Shen 2).
Modified Shen 1 does not disclose that the functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups.
Porath discloses a process for removing a first charged species in an aqueous solution where its functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups, (See column 3, lines 23-45, See Fig. 1A, See column 3, lines 46-65, and See column 8, lines 20-22, Porath). Additional features of this embodiment are included as part of the overall combination and are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Shen 2 by incorporating that the functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups as in Porath in order to provide a ligand that is “especially effective to bind heavy metals”, (See column 2, lines 2-3, Porath), because “the adsorption capacity can be strengthened so that more of one metal ion is adsorbed upon a given amount of adsorbent as well as the selectivity also can be strengthened by inserting further coordinating atoms, especially N” in which “the strengthening will be markedly more effective if these atoms are inserted so that…6-rings can be formed together with the coordinating atoms”, (See column 3, lines 9-15, Porath).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: A process according to claim 1 wherein the chelating groups are bidentate or tridentate chelating groups, (See pages 2-3, “3. Results and discussion”: “a fixed number of ethyleneimine monomers are bound directly to one cadmium ion” and “the formation of complexes with contain Cd and amine”, Shen 1).
Claim 4: A process according to claim 1 wherein the functionalised polymer is a polyamine which is functionalised to provide said chelating groups that have a greater binding affinity to the first charged species, (See page 4, lines 20-21, page 5, lines 1-2, Shen 2); and (See page 2, See “2.2. Methods: 2.2.1. Solution preparation”; “Polymer, surfactant and metallic ion solutions were prepared…a calculated amount of metallic ions was added first…PEI solution was added after…Finally, the surfactant solution was added…The solution was stirred”, Shen 1), optionally wherein: the polyamine is polyethylenimine (PEI) or polyallylamine (PAA), (See page 2, See “2.2. Methods: 2.2.1. Solution preparation”; “Polymer, surfactant and metallic ion solutions were prepared…a calculated amount of metallic ions was added first…PEI solution was added after…Finally, the surfactant solution was added…The solution was stirred”, Shen 1; this limitation is optional so is not required), and the groups that have a greater binding affinity to the first charged species comprise mono-2-picolyl amine groups or bis-2-picolyl amine groups, (this limitation is optional so is not required).
Claim 5: A process according to claim 1 wherein: (A) the functionalised polymer comprises functionalised units of formula (X), functionalised units of formula (Y), and/or functionalised units of formula (Z)
PNG
media_image3.png
300
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and optionally further comprises unfunctionalised units of formula (V) and/or unfunctionalised units of formula (W), (optional so not required),
PNG
media_image4.png
202
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
optionally wherein the functionalised polymer comprises N-(2-picolyl)-substituted PEI; or (B) the functionalised polymer comprises functionalised units of formula (I), and/or functionalised units of formula (II), (See Fig. 1A, or See column 3, lines 46-65, Porath), and optionally further comprises unfunctionalised units of formula (III), (optional so not required),
PNG
media_image5.png
180
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
optionally wherein the functionalised polymer comprises N-(2-picolyl)-substituted PAA, (optional so not required).
PNG
media_image6.png
292
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: A process according to claim 1 wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are positively charged species, (“2. Materials and methods”, “2.1. Materials”, “3.Results and discussion”, “Cd(II)” and Na from “sodium chloride” are both known to be positively charged ions, Shen 1), optionally metal cations, (optional so not required), and the ionic surfactant is an anionic surfactant, optionally wherein the ionic surfactant is sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), (“2.1. Materials”, “2.2.1. Solution preparation”, “Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate (SDS)” and “the surfactant solution as added”, Shen 1).
Claim 10: A process according to claim 1 wherein treating the solution with the functionalised polymer and the ionic surfactant results in the first charged species binding to groups of the functionalised polymer that have a greater binding affinity to the first charged species, (See page 2, column 2, “2.22. Filtration of solutions and total carbon and metallic ion concentration measurements”; “separate polymer-surfactant precipitates with bound metallic ions from the free metallic ions, surfactant monomers and free polymers”, and See page 2, “3. Results and discussion”: “a fixed number of ethyleneimine monomers are bound directly to one cadmium ion”, Shen 1).
Claim 11: A process according to claim 1 wherein treating the solution with the functionalised polymer and the ionic surfactant results in formation of a modified polymer-surfactant aggregate (modified PSA) which comprises: (i) a polymer-surfactant aggregate (PSA) which comprises the functionalised polymer and the ionic surfactant, and (ii) the first charged species, which is bound to groups of the functionalised polymer in the PSA that have a greater binding affinity to the first charged species, (“Introduction”, “uses oppositely charged polymer and surfactant structures, called polymer-surfactant aggregates (PSAs)”, and “4. Conclusions”, “the polymer…surfactant aggregate process”, Shen 1).
Claim 12: A process according to claim 1 which further comprises separating from the solution a composition comprising the functionalised polymer, the ionic surfactant and the first charged species, wherein the first charged species is bound to said groups of the functionalised polymer that have a greater binding affinity to the first charged species, (“2.2.1. Solution preparation”, “the purpose was to separate polymer-surfactant precipitates with bound metallic ions from the free metallic ions, surfactant monomers and free polymers in solution”, Shen 1).
Claim 13: A process according to claim 12 wherein the composition comprises a modified polymer-surfactant aggregate (modified PSA), which comprises: (i) a polymer-surfactant aggregate (PSA) which comprises the functionalised polymer and the ionic surfactant, and (ii) the first charged species, which is bound to groups of the functionalised polymer in the PSA that have a greater binding affinity to the first charged species, and wherein separating the composition from the solution comprises self-flocculation of the modified PSA, (“2.2.1. Solution preparation”, “the purpose was to separate polymer-surfactant precipitates with bound metallic ions from the free metallic ions, surfactant monomers and free polymers in solution”, Shen 1).
Claim 14: A process according to claim 12 wherein the process further comprises removing the first charged species from the composition comprising the functionalised polymer, the ionic surfactant and the first charged species, (“2.2.1. Solution preparation”, “the purpose was to separate polymer-surfactant precipitates with bound metallic ions from the free metallic ions, surfactant monomers and free polymers in solution”, See page 2, “3. Results and discussion”, “to remove varying feed concentrations of Cd(II)”, See page 2, Shen 1).
Claim 16: A process according to claim 14 wherein removing the first charged species from the composition comprises forming a dissolved salt of the first charged species, (See “2.1. Materials”, “cadmium sulfate”, See “2.2.1. Solution preparation”, “a calculated amount of metallic ions was added first and then diluted with deionized water”, See “2.2.2. Filtration of solutions and total carbon and metallic ion concentration measurements”, “the free metallic ions…in solution”, Shen 1), optionally wherein forming a dissolved salt of the first charged species comprises adjusting the pH, (optional so not required), optionally wherein: the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are positively charged species and adjusting the pH comprises treating the composition with an acidic solution, (optional so not required), optionally wherein adjusting the pH comprises reducing the pH to a pH of less than or equal to 1.5; or the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are negatively charged species and adjusting the pH comprises treating the composition with an alkaline solution, (optional so not required).
Claim 17: A process according to claim 16 wherein the process further comprises separating the dissolved salt of the first charged species from the functionalised polymer and the ionic surfactant, (See “2.2.2. Filtration of solutions and total carbon and metallic ion concentration measurements”, “separate polymer-surfactant precipitates…from the free metallic ions…in solution”, Shen 1), optionally wherein separating the dissolved salt from the functionalised polymer and the ionic surfactant comprises filtering the composition comprising (i) a solution of the salt, and (ii) a precipitate comprising the functionalised polymer and the ionic surfactant, (optional so not required).
Claim 18: A process according to claim 1 wherein the process further comprises, after the step of removing the first charged species from the composition, recovering the functionalised polymer and/or the ionic surfactant, (See “2.2.2. Filtration of solutions and total carbon and metallic ion concentration measurements”, “separate polymer-surfactant precipitates” and See page 1, “Introduction”, “After being stripped of the metallic ions, the polymer and surfactant flocs…are redissolved into a moderate base solution”, Shen 1), optionally wherein recovering the functionalised polymer and/or the ionic surfactant comprises adjusting the pH of the composition comprising the functionalised polymer and the ionic surfactant, (optional so not required).
Claim 19: A process according to claim 18 wherein the process further comprises re-using the recovered functionalised polymer and/or the recovered ionic surfactant in a further cycle of the process for selectively removing a charged species from a solution, (See page 1, “Introduction”, “After being stripped of the metallic ions, the polymer and surfactant flocs…are redissolved into a moderate base solution and directly recycled into the next cycle without a deterioration of removal ability”, Shen 1).
Claim 26: A process according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the monomeric molar concentration of the functionalized polymer to the molar concentration of the surfactant in the solution is from 1:4 to 4:1, (“a molar ratio between ethyleneimine monomer…and SDS…of 2.4 or 2.3 to 1”, See page 5, anticipates the claimed range at this value).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Shen 1 discloses a process according to claim 26, wherein the ratio of the monomeric molar concentration of the functionalized polymer to the molar concentration of the surfactant in the solution is in a range broader than 2:3 to 3:2, (“a molar ratio between ethyleneimine monomer…and SDS…of 2.4 or 2.3 to 1”, See page 5, Shen 1, and See page 23, lines 14-19, Shen 2; The ratio provided here is slightly broader in either direction than claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of modified Shen 1 by incorporating wherein the ratio of the monomeric molar concentration of the functionalized polymer to the molar concentration of the surfactant in the solution is from 2:3 to 3:2 because it is a result-effective variable and a ratio can be selected because “the relative amounts of the…polymer comprising ionizable groups and the ionic surfactant in the solution may depend upon the identity of charged species the polymer comprising ionizable groups and the ionic surfactant in the solution” and “the molar concentration may be varied significantly”, (See page 23, lines 5-11, Shen 2), in order to achieve “efficient remove and recovery of dilute heavy metal ions during process water treatment”, (See page 5, lines 7-8, Shen 2).
Claim 22 is directed to a polymer-surfactant aggregate, a composition or product type invention group.
Regarding Claim 22, Shen 1 discloses a modified polymer-surfactant aggregate (modified PSA), which comprises: (i) a polymer-surfactant aggregate (PSA), comprising a functionalised polymer and an ionic surfactant, (See page 2, See “2.2. Methods: 2.2.1. Solution preparation”; “Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate (SDS)”; and See page 2, See “2.2. Methods: 2.2.1. Solution preparation”; “Polymer, surfactant and metallic ion solutions were prepared…a calculated amount of metallic ions was added first…PEI solution was added after…Finally, the surfactant solution was added…The solution was stirred”); and (ii) a first charged species, (See page 2, “2. Materials and methods”; “Cadmium sulphate and sodium chloride”; cadmium, sulphate, sodium and chloride are all different charged species), wherein the functionalised polymer is a hydrophilic polymer, (“Polyethyleneimine (PEI) is a hydrophilic cationic polymer”, See page 5, Millipore Sigma evidentiary reference), which comprises chelating groups and the first charged species is bound to the chelating groups, (See page 2, column 2, “2.22. Filtration of solutions and total carbon and metallic ion concentration measurements”; “separate polymer-surfactant precipitates with bound metallic ions from the free metallic ions, surfactant monomers and free polymers”, and See page 2, “3. Results and discussion”: “a fixed number of ethyleneimine monomers are bound directly to one cadmium ion”), wherein the first charged species is metallic ions, wherein each chelating group comprises at least two donor atoms, which are the same or different, that are capable of bonding to the first charged species, the donor atoms being selected from carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulphur, (“binding ratio between amine monomer in PEI and Cd(II) ion”, See 3. Results and discussion”; amine has carbon and nitrogen), and wherein the functionalized polymer is a positively charged or a negatively charged polymer when in aqueous solution, (See page 2, “2.2.1. Solution preparation”, “The working pH value was 4.5 to ensure the PEI had a positive charge” and “PEI solution was added…diluted with deionized water”), wherein the interaction between the chelating groups of the functionalized polymer and the first charged species includes a covalent interaction, (As evidenced by “Chelation”, in Wikipedia, chelation is known to include at least a covalent interaction/bond between the ligand and the metal of interest; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation, obtained from Web on 1/27/2026).
PNG
media_image2.png
322
1164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shen 1 does not disclose wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are metallic ions of the same polarity and the chelating groups have a greater binding affinity to the first charge species.
Shen 2 discloses a process wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are metallic ions of the same polarity, (See page 11, lines 3-11; See page 12, lines 19-21; both are positively charged)) and the chelating groups have a greater binding affinity to the first charge species, (See Figure 8, affinity for removing zinc (Zn) is higher than magnesium (Mg), See page 6, lines 29-31, See page 41, lines 20-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Shen 1 by incorporating wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are metallic ions of the same polarity and the chelating groups have a greater binding affinity to the first charge species as in Shen 2 because “sequential removal and recovery of…heavy metal ions present in the system…is caused by the competitive adsorption between metal ions” and “if the dosages of polymer-surfactant and recovery agent is optimised for one particular amount of heavy metal in the solution, a relatively high purity of this concentrated heavy metal ion can be attained”, (See page 4, lines 20-21, page 5, lines 1-2, Shen 2).
Modified Shen 1 does not disclose that the functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups.
Porath discloses a process for removing a first charged species in an aqueous solution where its functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups, (See column 3, lines 23-45, See Fig. 1A, See column 3, lines 46-65, and See column 8, lines 20-22, Porath). Additional features of this embodiment are included as part of the overall combination and are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Shen 2 by incorporating that the functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups as in Porath in order to provide a ligand that is “especially effective to bind heavy metals”, (See column 2, lines 2-3, Porath), because “the adsorption capacity can be strengthened so that more of one metal ion is adsorbed upon a given amount of adsorbent as well as the selectivity also can be strengthened by inserting further coordinating atoms, especially N” in which “the strengthening will be markedly more effective if these atoms are inserted so that…6-rings can be formed together with the coordinating atoms”, (See column 3, lines 9-15, Porath).
Claim 24 is directed to a polymer-surfactant aggregate, a composition or product type invention group.
Regarding Claim 24, Shen 1 discloses a polymer-surfactant aggregate (PSA), comprising: (i) a functionalised polymer that is a hydrophilic polymer, (“Polyethyleneimine (PEI) is a hydrophilic cationic polymer”, See page 5, Millipore Sigma evidentiary reference), which comprises chelating groups, and (ii) an ionic surfactant, (See page 2, See “2.2. Methods: 2.2.1. Solution preparation”; “Polymer, surfactant and metallic ion solutions were prepared…a calculated amount of metallic ions was added first…PEI solution was added after…Finally, the surfactant solution was added…The solution was stirred”; and See page 2, column 2, “2.22. Filtration of solutions and total carbon and metallic ion concentration measurements”; “separate polymer-surfactant preciptiates with bound metallic ions from the free metallic ions, surfactant monomers and free polymers”, and See page 2, “3. Results and discussion”: “a fixed number of ethyleneimine monomers are bound directly to one cadmium ion”), wherein the first charged species are metallic ions, wherein each chelating group comprises at least two donor atoms, which are the same or different, that are capable of bonding to the first charged species, the donor atoms being selected from carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulphur, (“binding ratio between amine monomer in PEI and Cd(II) ion”, See 3. Results and discussion”; amine has carbon and nitrogen), and wherein the functionalized polymer is a positively charged or a negatively charged polymer when in aqueous solution, (See page 2, “2.2.1. Solution preparation”, “The working pH value was 4.5 to ensure the PEI had a positive charge” and “PEI solution was added…diluted with deionized water”).
Shen 1 does not disclose wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are metallic ions of the same polarity and the chelating groups have a greater binding affinity to the first charge species.
Shen 2 discloses a process wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are metallic ions of the same polarity, (See page 11, lines 3-11; See page 12, lines 19-21; both are positively charged)) and the chelating groups have a greater binding affinity to the first charge species, (See Figure 8, affinity for removing zinc (Zn) is higher than magnesium (Mg), See page 6, lines 29-31, See page 41, lines 20-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Shen 1 by incorporating wherein the first charged species and the at least one further charged species are metallic ions of the same polarity and the chelating groups have a greater binding affinity to the first charge species as in Shen 2 because “sequential removal and recovery of…heavy metal ions present in the system…is caused by the competitive adsorption between metal ions” and “if the dosages of polymer-surfactant and recovery agent is optimised for one particular amount of heavy metal in the solution, a relatively high purity of this concentrated heavy metal ion can be attained”, (See page 4, lines 20-21, page 5, lines 1-2, Shen 2).
Modified Shen 1 does not disclose that the functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups.
Porath discloses a process for removing a first charged species in an aqueous solution where its functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups, (See column 3, lines 23-45, See Fig. 1A, See column 3, lines 46-65, and See column 8, lines 20-22, Porath). Additional features of this embodiment are included as part of the overall combination and are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Shen 2 by incorporating that the functionalized polymer is a polymer which is functionalized to provide the chelating groups as in Porath in order to provide a ligand that is “especially effective to bind heavy metals”, (See column 2, lines 2-3, Porath), because “the adsorption capacity can be strengthened so that more of one metal ion is adsorbed upon a given amount of adsorbent as well as the selectivity also can be strengthened by inserting further coordinating atoms, especially N” in which “the strengthening will be markedly more effective if these atoms are inserted so that…6-rings can be formed together with the coordinating atoms”, (See column 3, lines 9-15, Porath).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779