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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 29th, 2025 has been entered. Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 3, and the addition of new claims 21-25. Claims 1-2 and 4-25 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 102(a)(2) rejection and several of the 112b rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 23rd, 2024 and therefore, the rejections which have been remedied by the amendments have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of these amendments and the addition of new claims, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 103 and 35 USC § 112.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the present rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for reasons summarized below.
Applicant argues that Barnea does not disclose water purification or microbial disinfection, and that the claimed methods are therefore patentable. This argument is not persuasive in the context of the present § 103 rejections. Barnea teaches treatment of polluted aqueous media using alkaline hydrogen peroxide systems that generate highly reactive oxygen species. Such oxidative treatment is directed to removing contaminants from water, and the same non-selective oxidizing species known to degrade organic pollutants are also well known to inactivate microorganisms. The rejection no longer relies on Barnea alone, but on its combination with additional references addressing sequencing and microbial targets.
Applicant further argues that Barnea does not teach the claimed order of addition (adding alkali hydroxide to water prior to peroxide). While Barnea discloses multiple reagent-delivery configurations without mandating a specific sequence, Gao expressly teaches that oxidation efficiency in aqueous peroxide systems depends on pH adjustment and reagent addition order, including establishing alkaline conditions prior to peroxide addition. In view of Gao, modifying Barnea’s process to control reagent sequence represents a predictable optimization of a known oxidation system, which does not confer patentability under § 103.
Applicant contends that Gao is not combinable due to differences in chemistry or operating conditions. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection relies on Gao for its general teaching regarding sequencing and reaction-environment optimization, not for importing its entire chemical system into Barnea. References may be combined for their relevant teachings where, as here, they address the same problem of improving aqueous peroxide oxidation.
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed September 29, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 3 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the last Office action because: The declaration evaluates only a narrow set of conditions and does not correspond to the closest combined prior-art embodiments. Moreover, the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claims, which encompass broad classes of microorganisms,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 13-16 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites a method of disinfecting water polluted with microbial pollutants. However, it is unclear by which step or means the water polluted with microbial pollutants has been disinfected, rendering the claim indefinite. Claim 13 further recites the limitation "separating the so-formed reaction mixture into aqueous and organic phases" in lines 6 and 7 of claim 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear to which so-formed reaction mixture the limitation applies. Claims 14-16 and 22-25 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 13.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation wherein the disinfecting of the water is achieved at “ambient temperature”. Ambient temperature refers to a temperature existing or present on all sides, or the encompassing atmosphere, and is relative to the environment that the disinfecting of the water occurs. Without knowing that environment it is impossible to define at what temperature the disinfecting occurs, rendering claim 23 indefinite. Claim 25 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 23.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnea (WO-2013093903-A1) in view of Gao (CN-110127833-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, Barnea discloses a method of purifying water polluted with one or more chemical organic (Barnea claim 9 “halogenated organic pollutant-contaminated liquid”) comprising adding alkali hydroxide (Barnea claim 1) to the water at a concentration of not less than 5mM to create an alkaline environment (Barnea claim 4 “not less than 1.5M and p. 19 last par. teaches adding 10 grams NaOH to 30mL of water which is not less than 5mM), adding a peroxide source to the polluted water (Barnea claim 1 “hydrogen peroxide”) in the presence of at least one additive selected from the group consisting of surfactants and phase transfer catalysts (Barnea claim 9), wherein the surfactant is an anionic surfactant or nonionic surfactant and the phase transfer catalyst is a quaternary ammonium salt consisting of a cation of the formula N+R1R2R3R4, wherein each of R1, R2, R3 and R4 is independently C1-C18 alkyl group, and a counter anion (Barnea claim 13) and optionally feeding oxygen or an oxygen-releasing substance to the water; and separating the so-formed reaction mixture into aqueous and organic phases, to recover a treated water stream and an organic stream, wherein the purification of the water by the removal of the chemical organic pollutants is achieved at ambient temperature (Barnea p. 12 par. 3 “at ambient conditions”).
Barnea does not explicitly disclose adding alkali hydroxide, followed by adding peroxide source to the polluted water, because Barnea is agnostic to order of addition and teaches multiple operational configurations.
Gao teaches key optimization strategies for oxidizing organic pollutants in water using hydrogen peroxide systems, including: adjusting pH of the polluted water before adding oxidant (Gao abstract); demonstrating that order of reagent addition affects performance, for examples adding sulfite and peroxide to polluted water in specific sequences; and emphasizing the importance of creating alkaline conditions prior to peroxide addition to achieve higher radical yields.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gao with the method of Barnea as both Barnea and Gao pursue the same objective of enhanced oxidation or organic pollutants using alkaline H2O2 systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve contaminant removal efficiency and Gao’s teaching that adjusting pH before peroxide addition affects radical generation would have motivated the artisan to apply this same sequencing optimization to Barnea’s system and to further reduce peroxide decomposition losses and promote in situ radical formation. Gao reinforces the knowledge that adding peroxide slowly and after achieving target pH improves efficiency which would provide the motivation to incorporate this into the method.
Regarding claim 2, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 1, comprising gradually feeding hydrogen peroxide to the polluted water in the alkaline environment. (Barnea p. 4 par. 1 teaches it is possible to inject two separate streams into the pollutant-contaminated medium indicating gradual feeding and in another embodiment of p. 8 par. 1 which describes a continuous flow reactor system with controlled feed rates using pumps).
Regarding claim 4, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the chemical organic pollutants to be removed are devoid of nitrogen and phosphorus atoms (Barnea p. 14 par. 1 “CTC”).
Regarding claim 5, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the chemical organic pollutants comprise one or more aromatic compounds selected from the group consisting of benzene, alkyl- substituted benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons consisting of two or more aromatic rings fused together, and halogenated aromatic rings (Barnea p. 11 last par.).
Regarding claim 6, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the chemical organic pollutants are halogen-substituted aliphatic hydrocarbons (Barnea p. 11 last par.).
Regarding claim 7, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the chemical organic pollutants to be removed comprise one or more pharmaceuticals (Gao claim 9).
Regarding claim 8, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 7, wherein at least one pharmaceutical is a fused-ring compound (Gao claim 9 “carbamazepine”).
Regarding claim 9, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 8, wherein at least one pharmaceutical is dibenzoazepine drug (Gao claim 9 “carbamazepine”).
Regarding claim 10, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the dibenzoazepine drug is carbamazepine (Gao claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the polluted water is groundwater (Barnea p. 1 par. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising bubbling neat oxygen, oxygen-rich air or air through the polluted water (Barnea “oxygen-enriched flue gas” p.8 par. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the chemical organic pollutants to be removed are devoid of nitrogen and phosphorus atoms (Barnea p. 14 par. 1 “CTC”).
Regarding claim 18, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the chemical organic pollutants to be removed are devoid of nitrogen and phosphorus atoms (Barnea p. 14 par. 1 “CTC”).
Regarding claim 19, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the chemical organic pollutants to be removed comprise one or more pharmaceuticals (Gao claim 9).
Regarding claim 20, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the chemical organic pollutants to be removed comprise one or more pharmaceuticals (Gao claim 9).
Regarding claim 21, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the peroxide source is hydrogen peroxide (Barnea claim 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnea (WO-2013093903-A1) in view of Gao (CN-110127833-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kramer (US-20100183738-A1).
Regarding claim 15, Barnea in view of Gao discloses the method of claim 13.
Barnea in view of Gao does not disclose that the surfactant is an anionic surfactant.
Kramer discloses a method of disinfecting water polluted with microbial pollutants (Kramer abstract), comprising adding a peroxide source (Kramer abstract) to the polluted water in an alkaline environment (Kramer par. [0008]) in the presence of at least one additive selected from the group consisting of surfactants and phase transfer catalysts (Kramer abstract and par. [0010]), where the surfactant is an anionic surfactant (Kramer par. [0011] provides a list of anionic anti-scalants, several of which are also surfactants “acrylamido methyl propyl sulfonic acid” as one example). Kramer explains that surfactants facilitate microbial inactivation by enhancing the penetration of oxidative agents through biological debris and hydrated organic matrices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kramer with the method of Barnea in view of Gao to optimize the system for the treatment of contaminated water. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the surfactant teachings of Kramer to further improve the mass transfer of oxidants, increase solubilization of hydrophobic contaminants, and enhance microbial inactivation efficiency. This motivation is reinforced by Gao, which demonstrates that reaction efficiency in aqueous oxidation processes is sensitive to formulation choices such as reagent order, pH, and the inclusion of additives that modulate radical accessibility. In light of Gao’s emphasis on optimizing reaction environment conditions and Kramer’s teaching that surfactants, to include anionic surfactants, are routinely employed to improve the performance of aqueous peroxide disinfection systems, it would have been obvious to include an anionic surfactant in the system of Barnea in view of Gao as a predictable variation to increase oxidative contact efficiency.
Claims 13-14, 16 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnea (WO-2013093903-A1) in view of Gao (CN-110127833-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and further in view of Fujii (JP2004027181A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 13, Barnea discloses a method of purifying water polluted with pollutants (Barnea claim 9 “halogenated organic pollutant-contaminated liquid”), comprising adding alkali hydroxide (Barnea claim 1) to the water, adding a peroxide source (Barnea claim 1) to the polluted water in the presence of at least one additive selected from the group consisting of surfactants and phase transfer catalysts (Barnea claim 9), optionally feeding oxygen or oxygen-releasing substance to the water; and separating the so-formed reaction mixture into aqueous and organic phases (Barnea p. 15 “separate layer”), to recover treated water stream and a recyclable organic stream (Barnea p. 15 “PTC layer is removed from aqueous phase”).
While Barnea does disclose the addition of many compounds known to disinfect water polluted with microbial contaminants (peroxide and quaternary ammonium are capable of destroying microbes), Barnea does not explicitly disclose that the method is a method of disinfecting water polluted with microbial pollutants. Barnea also does not explicitly disclose adding alkali hydroxide, followed by adding peroxide source to the polluted water, because Barnea is agnostic to order of addition and teaches multiple operational configurations.
Fujii is directed to a water and wastewater treatment method for disinfecting microbially contaminated aqueous streams, wherein oxidative treatment is applied to inactivate bacteria present in water. Fujii teaches subjecting contaminated water to chemical oxidation conditions and evaluating disinfection effectiveness using Escherichia coli as a representative indicator microorganism, reflecting standard practice in the water-treatment field. Fujii reinforces the knowledge that oxidative treatment of water in the presence of surfactants are an effective antibacterial treatment.
Gao teaches key optimization strategies for oxidizing organic pollutants in water using hydrogen peroxide systems, including: adjusting pH of the polluted water before adding oxidant (Gao abstract); demonstrating that order of reagent addition affects performance, for examples adding sulfite and peroxide to polluted water in specific sequences; and emphasizing the importance of creating alkaline conditions prior to peroxide addition to achieve higher radical yields.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water treatment method of Barnea by incorporating the teachings of Gao and Fujii. Barnea teaches a superoxide-based oxidative treatment system employing hydrogen peroxide and promoter agents to generate reactive oxygen species for contaminant degradation in aqueous environments. Gao further teaches that the effectiveness and controllability of peroxide-based oxidation systems are enhanced by regulating solution pH and by introducing hydrogen peroxide in a controlled or sequential manner, thereby optimizing radical formation while mitigating premature decomposition. Fujii teaches that such oxidative treatment systems are conventionally and effectively applied to water polluted with microbial contaminants, including bacteria, recognizing that reactive oxygen species generated from peroxide-based systems are capable of inactivating or destroying microbial pollutants in water. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to improve the efficacy, predictability, and applicability of Barnea’s oxidation process for real-world water treatment, would have been motivated to adopt Gao’s pH adjustment and staged peroxide addition techniques to optimize the oxidative environment, while also applying Fujii’s well-established understanding that peroxide-driven superoxide systems are suitable for treating microbially contaminated water.
Regarding claim 14, Barnea in view of Gao and further in view of Fujii discloses the method of claim 13, comprising gradually feeding hydrogen peroxide to the polluted water in the alkaline environment. (Barnea p. 4 par. 1 teaches it is possible to inject two separate streams into the pollutant-contaminated medium indicating gradual feeding and in another embodiment of p. 8 par. 1 which describes a continuous flow reactor system with controlled feed rates using pumps).
Regarding claim 16, Barnea in view of Gao and further in view of Fujii discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the surfactant is an anionic surfactant or nonionic surfactant (neither Barnea not Gao disclose a surfactant which is either anionic or nonionic, however, claim 13 requires at least one additive which may be either a surfactant or a phase transfer catalyst) and the phase transfer catalyst is a quaternary ammonium salt consisting of a cation of the formula N+R1R2R3R4, wherein each of R1, R2, R3 and R4 is independently C1-C18 alkyl group, and a counter anion (Barnea claim 13).
Regarding claim 22, Barnea in view of Gao and further in view of Fujii discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the peroxide source is hydrogen peroxide (Barnea claim 1).
Regarding claim 23, Barnea in view of Gao and further in view of Fujii discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the disinfecting of the water is achieved at ambient temperature (Barnea p. 6 indicates the range of temperatures suitable for the function of the method are broad “in the range from 5 to 80°C and “suitably at room temperature (20 to 25°C)” and p. 12 par. 3 “at ambient conditions” which includes the general, surrounding environmental factors such as ambient temperature, ambient humidity, ambient light, and ambient air pressure that envelop an object, system, or organism).
Regarding claim 24, Barnea in view of Gao and further in view of Fujii discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the microbial pollutants comprise bacteria (Fujii p. 10 par. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Barnea in view of Gao and further in view of Fujii discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the bacteria comprise E.coli (Fujii p. 10 par. 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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 at (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.
/W.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779