Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102277551 (B1) in view of Bhushan (US 2017/0072441), further in view of Jensen et al, even further in view of Ervin (US 2023/0183116). KR 102277551 (B1) discloses a process for treating organic wastewater wherein the wastewater is oxidized at a pH of 1 to 3 in a first reactor containing sulfuric acid, and a further step of oxidizing the wastewater in a second reactor at a pH of 8 to 10 and containing sodium hydroxide, and adding coagulant to coagulate and remove the suspended material. The differences between the process disclosed by KR 102277551 (B1), and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that KR 102277551 (B1) does not disclose that the reactors should be mixed, and that the coagulants should include a filtering medium, chitin and an adsorbent, including diatomaceous earth and bentonite. It would be obvious from Bhushan to stir the first and second reactors of KR 102277551 (B1). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since the processes of KR 102277551 (B1) and Bhushan are analogous in that both entail the removal of contaminants from wastewater, and Paragraph [0066] of Bhushan discloses that the wastewater mixed with the coagulant, flocculent should be gently stirred in order to enhance the interaction of small particles and promote the formation of larger flocs. It would be even further obvious from Jensen et al to include chitin, clays and powdered carbon as the coagulants in the process of KR 102277551 (B1). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since KR 102277551 (B1) teaches in Paragraph [0051] that there is no limitation on the type of coagulant used, and Jensen et al disclose clays, powdered carbon and chitin as common coagulants in Paragraph [0047]. It would be still further obvious from Ervin to include diatomaceous earth and bentonite clay as filter media in the process of Markham, Jr. et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Ervin discloses diatomaceous earth and bentonite clay as filter media in Paragraph [0022], and one would appreciate that filter media would be desirable to remove suspended material in the process of KR 10227751 (B1). It would be further obvious from Jensen et al to dewater the sludge formed in the process of KR 102277551 (B1) by any conventional means. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since KR 102277551 (B1) Jensen et al disclose in Paragraph [0058] that the solids are dewatered.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102277551 (B1) in view of Bhushan, further in view of Jensen et al, even further in view of Ervin, as applied to claim 5 above, still further in view of WARD et al (US 2009/0107920). It would be still further obvious from WARD et al to form a fertilizer co-product from the sludge byproduct in the process of KR 102277551 (B1). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since the processes of KR 102277551 (B1) and WARD et al are analogous in that both entail the treatment of organic wastewater to product a sludge, and WARD et al teach in Paragraphs [0030] and [0031] that the sludge can be dewatered and formed into pellets for use as a fertilizer.
Regarding claim 25, it is well-known that nitrogen is a fertilizer macronutrient. It would be further obvious to blend nitrogen with the fertilizer pellets of WARD et al to make the pellets more valuable as a fertilizer product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, that claim 1 has been amended to ensure its entitlement to the filing date of the provisional application, is not convincing, since there is no “ description support” in the provisional application for the limitations recited in claims 5, 7, 25 and 26. Accordingly KR 102277551 (B1) is properly available as prior art as to these claims.
The Rubin Affidavits has been considered, but is not convincing of error in the rejection. The Affidavit is largely the opinion and conclusion of Dr. Rubin of the exceptional efficacy of the claimed method. For example, Paragraph 14 of the Affidavit states that claim 1 has been amended to set out what causes the wastewater treatment method to perform exceptionally well in comparison to prior art methods, including by being highly effective in removing metals, such as chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and iron, and “forever chemicals”, including numerous PFAS variants, form wastewater. However Jensen et al disclose clays, powdered carbon and chitin as common coagulant chemicals, and Markham, Jr. et al suggest at col. 4, lines 47-56 that other flocculation and/or coagulation chemicals may be added. It would not be unexpected from such teaching of Markham, Jr, et al and Jensen that the addition of chitin as a coagulant would result in the effective treatment of the wastewater.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WARD et al (US 2009/0107920). No distinction is seen between the dewatered sludge disclosed in Paragraph [0030] of WARD et al, and that recited in claims 27 and 28, since both are useful as fertilizers. In any event, it would be obvious to provide conditions in the process of WARD et al to form a sludge having the characteristics of the dewatered sludge byproduct recited in claim 27.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WARD et al. WARD et al is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore. Regarding claim29, it is well-known that nitrogen is a fertilizer micronutrient. It would be further obvious to blend nitrogen with the fertilizer pellets of WARD et al to make the pellets more valuable as a fertilizer product.
Regarding claim 30 WARD et al teach in Paragraphs [0030] and [0031] that the sludge can be formed into fertilizer pellets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, that Markham, Jr. et al does not disclose that tank 22 should contain chitosan and a filtering medium, that the oxidation ditch should include an adsorbent, and that the contents should be mixed,
and that each of these is fundamental to applicant’s claims method and the advantageous performance thereof as supported by the Affidavit od Dr. A Robert Rubin, an impartial and recognized scientist and academic in the art of wastewater management, and the analytical test results by GEL. Laboratories, LLC, is not convincing, since there is no indication on record that the fertilizer co-product recited in claims 27-30 would necessarily be novel and unobvious over the fertilizer formed according to the process of WARD et al. In any event, the Rubin Affidavit is largely the opinion and conclusion of Dr. Rubin of the exceptional efficacy of the claimed method. For example, Paragraph 14 of the Affidavit states that claim 1 has been amended to set out what causes the wastewater treatment method to perform exceptionally well in comparison to prior art methods, including by being highly effective in removing metals, such as chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and iron, and “forever chemicals”, including numerous PFAS variants, form wastewater. However Jensen et al disclose clays, powdered carbon and chitin as common coagulant chemicals, and Markham, Jr. et al suggest at col. 4, lines 47-56 that other flocculation and/or coagulation chemicals may be added. It would not be unexpected from such teaching of Markham, Jr, et al and Jensen that the addition of chitin as a coagulant would result in the effective treatment of the wastewater.
Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markham, Jr. et al (US 4,933,087) in view of Bhushan (US 2017/0072441), further in view of Jensen et al (US 20150101988), even further in view of Ervin (US 2023/0183116). Markham, Jr. et al discloses a method for treating food wastewaters by adding acid and an alginate to a first reactor, and then adding alkali to provide a secondary treatment. (See Fig. 1 and the description thereof.) The differences between the process disclosed by Markham, Jr. et al, and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that Markham, Jr. et al do not disclose that tank 22 should contain a filtering medium including chitosan, diatomaceous earth and bentonite, that the oxidation ditch should include an adsorbent comprising tempered charcoal, and that the contents should be mixed. It would be obvious from Bhushan to mix the contents in tank 22 and the oxidation ditch of Markham, Jr. et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since the processes of Markham, Jr. et al and Bhushan are analogous in that both are directed to the treatment of wastewater, and Paragraph [0066] of Bhushan discloses that the wastewater mixed with the coagulant/ flocculent should be gently stirred in order to enhance the interaction of small particles and promote the formation of larger flocs. It would be even further obvious from Jensen et al to include chitin, clays and powdered carbon as the coagulants in the process of Markham, Jr. et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Markham, Jr. et al suggest at col. 4, lines 47-56 that other flocculation and/or coagulation chemicals may be added, and Jensen et al disclose clays, powdered carbon and chitin as common coagulation chemicals. It would be even further obvious from Ervin to include diatomaceous earth and bentonite clay as filter media in the process of Markham, Jr. et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Ervin discloses diatomaceous earth and bentonite clay as filter media in Paragraph [0022], and
Regarding claims 2-5, it would be further obvious from Jensen et al to dewater the sludge formed in the process of Markham, Jr. et al by any conventional means. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Jensen et al disclose in Paragraph [0058] that the solids are dewatered.
Regarding claim 11, it would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable amount of the chitin to use in the process of Markham, Jr. et al. Regarding claims 13 and 14, Jensen et al disclose powdered carbon and calcium oxide as common coagulants in Paragraph [0047].
Regarding claim 15, it would be obvious to include sodium hydroxide in the oxidation ditch of Markham, Jr. et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Fig. 1 of Markham, Jr. et al discloses the introduction of “alkali” to the oxidation ditch, and it is well-known that sodium hydroxide is alkaline.
Regarding claim 17, it would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine suitable amounts of the powdered carbon, calcium oxide and caustic soda in the process of Markham, Jr. et al.
Regarding claim 18, it would be expected that the use of lime or calcium hydroxide as coagulant in the process of Markham, Jr. et al would raise the pH to between 7 and 10.
Regarding claim 19, it would be a matter of routine design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a method of measuring the pH.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, it would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine suitable mixing and aeration times in the process of Markham, Jr. et al.
Regarding claim 10, it would be obvious to use any known diatomaceous earth, bentonite clay and chitin as the coagulant.
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markham, Jr. et al in view of Bhushan, further in view of Jensen et al, even further in view of Ervin, as applied to claim 1 above, and still further in view of WARD et al. It would be even further obvious from WARD et al to form a fertilizer co-product from the sludge byproduct in the process of Markham, Jr. et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since the processes of Markham, Jr. et al and WARD et al are analogous in that both entail the treatment of organic wastewater to product a sludge, and WARD et al teach in Paragraphs [0030] and [0031] that the sludge can be dewatered and formed into pellets for use as a fertilizer.
Regarding claim 25, it is well-known that nitrogen is a fertilizer macronutrient. It would be further obvious to blend nitrogen with the fertilizer pellets of WARD et al to make the pellets more valuable as a fertilizer product.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markham, Jr. et al in view of Bhushan, further in view of Jensen et al, even further in view of Ervin, as applied to claim 15 above, and still further in view of KR 101902337B1. It would be further obvious from KR 101902337B1 to include silicon dioxide as a coagulant in the process of Markham, Jr. et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since KR 101902337B1 discloses silicon dioxide as a natural coagulant in Paragraph [0073] of the English translation, and Markham, Jr. et al teach from col. 3, line 67 to col. 4, line 56 that a flocculation and/or coagulating chemical should be included.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, that Markham, Jr. et al does not disclose that tank 22 should contain chitosan and a filtering medium, that the oxidation ditch should include an adsorbent, and that the contents should be mixed, is , and that each of these is fundamental to applicant’s claims method and the advantageous performance thereof as supported by the Affidavit od Dr. A Robert Rubin, an impartial and recognized scientist and academic in the art of wastewater management, and the analytical test results by GEL. Laboratories, LLC, is not convincing, since the Affidavit is largely the onion and conclusion of Dr. Rubin of the exceptional efficacy of the claimed method. For example, Paragraph 14 of the Affidavit staes that claim 1 has been amended to set out what causes the wastewater treatment method to perform exceptionally well in comparison to prior art methods, including by being highly effective in removing metals, such as chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and iron, and “forever chemicals”, including numerous PFAS variants, form wastewater. However Jensen et al disclose clays, powdered carbon and chitin as common coagulant chemicals, and Markham, Jr. et al suggest at col. 4, lines 47-56 that other flocculation and/or coagulation chemicals may be added. It would not be unexpected from such teaching of Markham, Jr, et al and Jensen that the addition of chitin as a coagulant would result in the effective treatment of the wastewater. Paragraph 18 of the Affidavit states that methods employing the claimed range of chitin or chitosan demonstrate unexpected and advantageous results as compared to the teachings of the prior art. However ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` claims 1-5, 7, 10 and 13-26 do not recite a range for the amount of the chitin or chitosan. In any event, it is not seen where the results provided by the GEL Laboratories report would show evidence of unexpected results for the range of chitin or chitosan recited in claim 11.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736