DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE with amendments and remarks filed 05/11/2026, in which claims 31-32 have been amended, and claims 21-28, 30-36 and 38-50 are pending and ready for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11 MAY 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The term “a metal hydro(oxide)” is interpreted to mean a metal oxide and/or metal hydroxide.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-28, 30-36 and 38-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 21, 33 and 40, from which claims 22-28, 30-36 and 38-50 depend, recites the limitation “the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond”, however the original disclosure does not recite the term “hydrolytic bond”, which appears to be first introduced in the preliminary amendments dated 02/09/2024, and thus the term “hydrolytic bond” is new matter.
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 21-28, 30-36 and 38-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 21, 33 and 40 recite the limitation recites the limitation “the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond”, however it not clear what is meant by the term “hydrolytic bond”, as this is not discussed in the specification. The ordinary meaning appears to be “a bond susceptible to cleavage by the addition of a water molecule”, though applicants appear to use it to mean a bond formed during hydrolysis. Thus either definition will be used for interpretation.
Claims 22-28, 30-32, 34-36, 38-39 and 41-50 are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim.
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 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.
Claims 21-23 and 28, 30-34, 38-42 and 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesar Nieto-Delgado, Jose Rene Rangel-Mendez, Anchorage of iron hydro(oxide) nanoparticles onto activated carbon to remove As(V) from water, Water Research, Volume 46, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 2973-2982 (hereinafter “Nieto-Delgado”, provided with the IDS dated 12/08/2022) in view of Çiftçi, T. D. (2017). Adsorptive properties of Fe3O4/Ni/NixB nanocomposite coated nutshell for the removal of arsenic(iii) and arsenic(V) from waters. Cogent Chemistry, 3(1). (hereinafter “Çiftçi”), as evidenced by Yasemin Bulut, Zeki Tez, Adsorption studies on ground shells of hazelnut and almond, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 149, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 35-41 (hereinafter “Bulut”).
Regarding Claim 21 Nieto-Delgado discloses a particle for removal of arsenic (i.e. a chemical) from water (i.e. a fluid), the particle comprising
an activated carbon particle substrate,
an iron (i.e. metal) hydro(oxide); and
the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the activated carbon particle substrate by a hydrolytic bond (i.e. a bond formed during hydrolysis); (Abstract, Secs. 2.1., 3.2., 4.).
Nieto-Delgado does not disclose the particle substrate is a nut shell.
However, Çiftçi discloses a particle for removal of arsenic from a water, the particle comprising: a nut shell (hazelnut); coated with a metal hydro(oxide), Fe3O4/Ni/NixB; Title, Abstract, 2.3., 2.5., Conclusion.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle of Nieto-Delgado by substituting for the particle substrate a nut shell particle as disclosed by Çiftçi because this involves the simple substitution of known particle substrates for coating with metal hydro(oxide) particles for use in removing arsenic from water, to obtain the predictable results of forming a successful filtration media.
With regard to the metal hydro(oxide) being bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond (see 112 rejections above), since the particle disclosed in the produced in a substantially similar way as that claimed and disclosed, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi inherently has the same properties as recited. Specifically, it is asserted that the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond. See MPEP 2112.01. See also where Nieto-Delgado discusses anchoring of the iron hydro(oxide) particles to the activated carbon substrate, by what are interpreted to be hydrolytic bonds because they are formed via condensation (and thus seen to be susceptible to cleavage by the addition of a water molecule, since it is formed in the opposite manner) and during hydrolysis (Sec. 3.2.). Specifically, the particles of Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi are made by a process including contacting the substrate (i.e. the nut shell) with a source of metal ions (FeCL3); forming a mixture comprising an aqueous metal complex (i.e. the soaking in the FeCL3 solution and/or thermal hydrolysis); heating the mixture to produce a thermal hydrolysis reaction (70-120°C for 4-14 hours); and thus forming a metal hydro(oxide) bonded to a surface of the nut shell; (Nieto-Delgado Sec. 2.1.) Where Applicants’ particle is made by a similar process, wherein Applicants’ note that the hydrolytic bond is formed via carboxylic acid groups on the nutshell surface reacting with the metal hydro(oxide) during hydrolysis reaction (instant specification [0035]-[0037]). Thus, as hazelnut shells, as used by Çiftçi, are known to inherently comprise carboxylic groups as evidenced by Bulut (Sec. 2.2. and Table 1 shows carboxylic groups are inherent to washed and ground hazelnut shells “SH”), and the nutshell is further reacted with FeCl3 (the same chemical as used by Applicants) in a hydrolysis reaction, it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi inherently has hydrolytic bonds bonding the metal hydro(oxide) to the surface of the nut shell.
Regarding Claims 22-23 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 21, wherein the metal hydro(oxide) is iron hydro(oxide), supra, and thus comprises iron, a transition metal.
Regarding Claim 28 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 21, wherein the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nut shell; see the rejection of claim 21, supra.
Regarding Claim 30 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 21, further comprising a carboxylate group associated with the metal hydro(oxide) and bonded to the nut shell, i.e. because carboxylate groups are inherent to the nutshells and due to the formation method, which is substantially similar to that claimed, see the rejection of claim 21 supra, and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 31 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the chemical of claim 21, wherein “the chemical” is material worked upon and is thus not positively claimed, see MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim 32 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the fluid of claim 21, wherein “the fluid” is material worked upon and is thus not positively claimed, see MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim 33 Nieto-Delgado discloses a process for preparing a filter medium for removal of arsenic (i.e. a chemical) from water (i.e. a fluid), the process comprising
contacting an activated carbon particle substrate with a source of iron (i.e. metal) ions,
forming a mixture comprising an aqueous iron (metal) complex,
heating the mixture to produce a thermal hydrolysis reaction; and
forming a metal hydro(oxide) bonded to a surface of the activated carbon particle substrate, wherein the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the activated carbon particle substrate by a hydrolytic bond (i.e. a bond formed during hydrolysis); (Abstract, Secs. 2.1., 3.2., 4.).
Nieto-Delgado does not disclose the particle substrate is a nut shell, or contacting the nut shell with an acidic solution and washing the nut shell before contacting the source of metal ions.
However, Çiftçi discloses a process for preparing a filter medium for removal of a chemical (arsenic) from a fluid (water), the process comprising:
contacting a (hazelnut) nut shell with an acidic solution (HCl) and washing the nut shell (with distilled water);
contacting the nut shell with a source of metal ions (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution);
forming a mixture comprising an aqueous metal complex (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution with NaBH4); and thus forming a metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB bonded to a surface of the nut shell; Title, Abstract, 2.3., 2.5., Conclusion.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle of Nieto-Delgado by substituting for the particle substrate a nut shell particle, which has been contacted with an acidic solution (HCl) and washed before contacting the nut shell with the source of metal ions as disclosed by Çiftçi because this involves the simple substitution of known particle substrates that have been prepared for coating with metal hydro(oxide) particles for use in removing arsenic from water, to obtain the predictable results of forming a successful filtration media, and because the acid and washing treatments are disclosed to be performed before metal solution exposure and would thus be obvious to perform in the combined invention so they nut shell particles are clean and prepared for the metal particle formation.
With regard to the metal hydro(oxide) being bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond (see 112 rejections above), since the particle disclosed in the produced in a substantially similar way as that claimed and disclosed, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi inherently has the same properties as recited. Specifically, it is asserted that the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond. See MPEP 2112.01. See also where Nieto-Delgado discusses anchoring of the iron hydro(oxide) particles to the activated carbon substrate, by what are interpreted to be hydrolytic bonds because they are formed via condensation (and thus seen to be susceptible to cleavage by the addition of a water molecule, since it is formed in the opposite manner) and during hydrolysis (Sec. 3.2.). Specifically, the particles of Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi are made by a process including treatment of nut shells with acid and washing (i.e. from Çiftçi as above) before contacting the substrate (i.e. the nut shell) with a source of metal ions (FeCL3); forming a mixture comprising an aqueous metal complex (i.e. the soaking in the FeCL3 solution and/or thermal hydrolysis); heating the mixture to produce a thermal hydrolysis reaction (70-120°C for 4-14 hours); and thus forming a metal hydro(oxide) bonded to a surface of the nut shell; (Nieto-Delgado Sec. 2.1.) Where Applicants’ particle is made by a similar process, wherein Applicants’ note that the hydrolytic bond is formed via carboxylic acid groups on the nutshell surface reacting with the metal hydro(oxide) during hydrolysis reaction (instant specification [0035]-[0037]). Thus, as hazelnut shells, as used by Çiftçi, are known to inherently comprise carboxylic groups as evidenced by Bulut (Sec. 2.2. and Table 1 shows carboxylic groups are inherent to washed and ground hazelnut shells “SH”), and the nutshell is further reacted with FeCl3 (the same chemical as used by Applicants) in a hydrolysis reaction, it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi inherently has hydrolytic bonds bonding the metal hydro(oxide) to the surface of the nut shell.
Regarding Claim 34 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 33 wherein the metal hydro(oxide) is iron hydro(oxide), supra, and thus comprises iron, a transition metal.
Regarding Claim 38 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 33 wherein the chemical comprises arsenic (i.e. a contaminant); supra.
Regarding Claim 39 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 33, wherein the fluid comprises water contaminated by arsenic, where water comprising arsenic may come from mining waste (i.e. wastewater, Nieto-Delgado Introduction), and thus it would have been obvious to filter wastewaters containing arsenic.
Regarding Claim 40 Nieto-Delgado discloses a process for treating fluid to remove a chemical, the process comprising
contacting the fluid with a particle comprising
an activated carbon particle substrate;
an iron (i.e. metal) hydro(oxide), wherein the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the activated carbon particle substrate by a hydrolytic bond,
adhering the chemical to the metal hydro(oxide); and
recovering the fluid (i.e. by centrifuging); (Abstract, Secs. 2.1., 2.2., 3.2., 4.).
Nieto-Delgado does not disclose the particle substrate is a nut shell.
However, Çiftçi discloses a process for treating fluid (water) to remove a chemical (arsenic), the process comprising: contacting the fluid with a particle comprising: a nut shell; and a metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB; adhering the chemical to the metal hydro(oxide); and recovering the fluid; Title, Abstract, 2.3., 2.5., Conclusion and Sec.2.5. Adsorption experiments.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle of Nieto-Delgado by substituting for the particle substrate a nut shell particle as disclosed by Çiftçi because this involves the simple substitution of known particle substrates for coating with metal hydro(oxide) particles for use in removing arsenic from water, to obtain the predictable results of forming a successful filtration media.
With regard to the metal hydro(oxide) being bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond (see 112 rejections above), since the particle disclosed in the produced in a substantially similar way as that claimed and disclosed, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi inherently has the same properties as recited. Specifically, it is asserted that the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond. See MPEP 2112.01. See also where Nieto-Delgado discusses anchoring of the iron hydro(oxide) particles to the activated carbon substrate, by what are interpreted to be hydrolytic bonds because they are formed via condensation (and thus seen to be susceptible to cleavage by the addition of a water molecule, since it is formed in the opposite manner) and during hydrolysis (Sec. 3.2.). Specifically, the particles of Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi are made by a process including contacting the substrate (i.e. the nut shell) with a source of metal ions (FeCL3); forming a mixture comprising an aqueous metal complex (i.e. the soaking in the FeCL3 solution and/or thermal hydrolysis); heating the mixture to produce a thermal hydrolysis reaction (70-120°C for 4-14 hours); and thus forming a metal hydro(oxide) bonded to a surface of the nut shell; (Nieto-Delgado Sec. 2.1.) Where Applicants’ particle is made by a similar process, wherein Applicants’ note that the hydrolytic bond is formed via carboxylic acid groups on the nutshell surface reacting with the metal hydro(oxide) during hydrolysis reaction (instant specification [0035]-[0037]). Thus, as hazelnut shells, as used by Çiftçi, are known to inherently comprise carboxylic groups as evidenced by Bulut (Sec. 2.2. and Table 1 shows carboxylic groups are inherent to washed and ground hazelnut shells “SH”), and the nutshell is further reacted with FeCl3 (the same chemical as used by Applicants) in a hydrolysis reaction, it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi inherently has hydrolytic bonds bonding the metal hydro(oxide) to the surface of the nut shell.
Regarding Claim 41 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40, wherein the step of contacting the fluid with the particle is performed in a batch mode; Nieto-Delgado Sec. 2.1.
Regarding Claim 42 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40, and while a continuous process is not disclosed, it has been held obvious to make continuous a batch process, see MPEP 2144.04(V)(E).
Regarding Claim 48 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40, wherein the recovered fluid comprises less of the chemical than the fluid, i.e. because this is inherent to removing the arsenic, see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 49 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40, wherein the chemical comprises arsenic (i.e. a contaminant); supra.
Regarding Claim 50 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40, wherein the fluid comprises water contaminated by arsenic, where water comprising arsenic may come from mining waste (i.e. wastewater, Nieto-Delgado Introduction), and thus it would have been obvious to filter wastewaters containing arsenic.
Claims 24-25, 35 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi as evidenced by Bulut and further in view of US 3562153 (hereinafter “Tully”).
Regarding Claims 24-25 and 35 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 24 and the method of claim 33, but does not disclose the metal is aluminum.
However, Tully discloses a similar particle for removal of a chemical (oil) from a fluid (water), the particle comprising: a nut shell; and a metal oxide particle, wherein the metal oxide may be iron oxide or alumina; C1/L67-C2/L26.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle of Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi by substituting for the metal hydro(oxide) particle alumina particles as disclosed by Tully because this involves the simple substitution of known metal hydro(oxide) particles for coating a nutshell for use in an adsorbent for removal of a chemical from a fluid to obtain the predictable results of forming a successful filtration media, and because Tully discloses alumina is a known alternative to iron oxide for coating a nutshell for use in an adsorbent for removal of a chemical from a fluid. Thus the metal hydro(oxide) comprises the Group IIIA metal aluminum.
Regarding Claim 46 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40, but does not disclose the chemical comprises oil.
However, Tully discloses a similar process for treating a fluid (water) to remove a chemical (oil), the process comprising: contacting the fluid with a particle comprising: a nut shell; and a metal oxide particle, wherein the metal oxide may be iron oxide or alumina; adhering the chemical to the metal oxide particle; and recovering the fluid; C1/L67-C2/L26.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi by substituting oil for the chemical to be removed as disclosed by Tully because it is known that similar metal hydro(oxide) coated nutshells may be used to remove oil from water and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the process to be used for additional applications including oil removal, to obtain the predictable results of removing oil contaminant from the water.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto-Delgado as evidenced by Bulut further in view of CN 104383886 A (hereinafter “Cao”).
Regarding Claims 26 and 36 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 21 and the process of claim 33 but does not disclose wherein the nut shell comprises a walnut shell.
However Cao discloses a similar metal oxide treated nutshell adsorbent for removing a contaminant (Cu) from water, wherein the nutshell used in a walnut shell; Abstract, Claims.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle and process of Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi by substituting fort the nutshell walnut shell as disclosed by Cao because this involves the simple substitution of known nut shells used for absorbent particles in water filtration to obtain the predictable results of forming a successful filtration media.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto-Delgado as evidenced by Bulut further in view of US 8,551,431 B1 (hereinafter “Adams”).
Regarding Claim 27 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 21 but does not disclose wherein the nut shell comprises a pecan shell.
However Adams discloses it is known to treated pecan shell as adsorbent for mercury removal in flue gas streams (Title, Abstract, C1/L18-56),
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle and process of Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi by substituting for the nutshell, pecan shell as disclosed by Adams because this involves the simple substitution of known nut shells used for absorbent particles in fluid filtration to obtain the predictable results of forming a successful filtration media.
Claims 43-45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto-Delgado as evidenced by Bulut further in view of US 2014/0251806 (hereinafter “Larson”).
Regarding Claim 43-45 and 47 Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40, but does not disclose the chemical comprises (claims 43 and 45) total organic carbon, (claim 44) silica, or (claim 47) hardness.
However, Larson discloses a process for treating fluid to remove a chemical, the process comprising: contacting the fluid with a particle comprising: a nut shell; adhering the chemical to the nutshell; and recovering the fluid; SAGD operation uses walnut shell filter 34 to remove (suspended solids and/or organics including oil), [0007]-[0010], [0017], Fig. Wherein the chemicals removed are “suspended solids and/organics” for example trace amounts of oil [0017], thus includes sources of total organic carbon, which are left over after softening and clarification, which are disclosed to remove silica and hardness [0015]-[0016].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Nieto-Delgado in view of Çiftçi by using the particle in a filter to remove any undesirable chemicals remaining in the water including suspended solids and/organics, including oil, silica and hardness, as disclosed by Larson because it is known to use similar nutshell filters to remove undesirable chemicals remaining in the water including suspended solids and/organics, including oil, silica and hardness and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the process to be used for additional applications including removal of suspended solids and/organics, including oil, silica and hardness, to obtain the predictable results of removing undesirable chemicals remaining in the water including suspended solids and/organics, including oil, silica and hardness.
Response to Amendment
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 31-32 are withdrawn in view of the Applicants’ arguments and amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered, but they are now largely moot because they are directed in their entirety to grounds of rejection which are no longer cited in the current action and the new limitations of the amended claims which had not been previously addressed. See the updated rejection above citing a new combination of references to address the amended claims.
In response to Applicants’ argument that may be seen to still apply to the current prior art rejections, that the prior art does not disclose treating the nutshells with an oxidizing agent before thermal hydrolysis, and thus the combination of the prior art would not form a hydrolytic bond; the Examiner disagrees. With regard to inherency of the claimed hydrolytic bond, cited prior art Nieto-Delgado discloses such a hydrolytic bond is formed during hydrolysis without treating the substrate particle (activated carbon) with oxidizing agent, i.e. with just the oxygenated surfaces groups present on the activated carbon. As we known such oxygenated groups are present in the nutshells of Çiftçi due to the disclosure of Bulut, the hydrolytic bond would be expected to form, even absent specific oxidizing agent. Further no evidence appears in the original disclosure to supports the oxidizing agent exposure to be necessary for hydrolytic bond formation.
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., the nut shell is exposed to an oxidizing agent before thermal hydrolysis) 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Benjamin L 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights