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 .
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-11
Withdrawn Claims: 12-23
Cancelled Claims: 24-31
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 11 MAY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claim 1 has been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the drawings, the objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been modified to account for the limitation changes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11 MAY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Suzuki teaches to supply oxygen rich gas or at least air to the catalytic wet oxidation reactor and so does not teach the new limitation of instant claim 1 requiring the catalytic zone to have less than 6 volume % oxygen. Therefore, instant claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 11 May 2026, Page 8 to Page 9, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Suzuki teaches that an oxygen containing exhaust gas may be used (Col. 7, Lines 33-38), and especially teaches that the oxygen containing gas is not restricted for the catalytic oxidation reactor including and exhaust gas from the preceding noncatalytic wet oxidation step (Col. 13, Lines 53-65). Furthermore, Suzuki teaches that the efficiency of the noncatalytic wet oxidation reaction is controlled to ranges of 20%-80% with ratios of oxygen theoretically required to degrade COD components being in ranges of 0.5 to 5 times (Col. 7, Lines 13-48). Combining these teachings, the air from the first reactor at a vol% of oxygen of 21% supplied in a ratio of 1:1 with the influent COD and using an 80% efficiency of reaction, the remaining oxygen content in the gas phase would be 0.21 Oxygen*(1-0.8) = 0.042 or 4.2% oxygen concentration leftover in the exhaust gas from the noncatalytic wet oxidation reactor. Since this is explicitly described as being used as a feed for the catalytic wet oxidation reactor, Suzuki teaches operating the catalytic wet oxidation reactor with oxygen concentrations of less than 6 volume %. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the catalytic zone is configured to be operated under substantially oxygen-free conditions with an oxygen concentration in the catalytic zone gas phase of less than 6 vol.%” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115. Therefore, instant claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that instant claims 2-9 are allowable because instant claim is allowable and Maugans and Harada also do not teach the oxygen lean environment for a catalytic zone downstream from a wet air oxidation reactor (Arguments filed 11 May 2026, Page 9, Paragraphs 3-5).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, instant claim 1 is not allowable and so instant claims 2-9 are also not allowable.
Applicant argues that the space velocities taught by Suzuki encompass an enormous range of flow rates and reactor volumes and do not provide an explicit teaching to arrive at the at least 2:1 volume ratio of instant claim 7. Therefore, it would not be obvious to select the volume ratio of instant claim 7 and instant claims 7 and 9 are allowable (Arguments filed 11 May 2026, Page 10).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Suzuki teaches optimizable ranges of space velocities for the two reactors, of which reactor volume is a critical piece of space velocity. The ranges of volumes and velocities taught by Suzuki include volumes of a first reactor to a second reactor of 2:1 or more and a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). Applicant only asserts that the volume ratio of 2:1 or more is critical without supporting evidence. Applicant may submit an affidavit with evidence pointing to the criticality of the reactor ratios to overcome the obviousness rejection of overlapping ranges. Therefore, instant claims 7 and 9 are not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-11 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 1 recites the limitation "the catalytic zone gas phase" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al US Patent No. US 5534148 A (hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses a process for purifying a photographic waste containing nitrogen (i.e., a system for treating wastewater containing organic nitrogen compounds, comprising; Col. 1, Lines 5-12)
by successively performing a noncatalytic wet oxidation (i.e., a wet air oxidation unit) with the noncatalytic wet oxidation tower (Fig. 2, #38) being fed by a gas-liquid mixture supply line (i.e., having an inlet fluidly connectable to a source of wastewater containing organic nitrogen compounds; Fig. 2, #30), having a gas exhaust line (i.e., a gas outlet; Fig. 2, #32) after the catalytic wet oxidation tower (Fig. 2, #21), and a treated solution exhaust line (i.e., and a liquid effluent outlet, the wet air oxidation unit comprising; Fig. 2, #33)
wherein the noncatalytic wet oxidation is performed a under pressure to hold the waste solution in a liquid phase while supplying an oxygen containing gas (i.e., with an oxidation zone fluidly connectable to a source of an oxidant)
followed by a catalytic wet oxidation (i.e., a catalytic zone downstream from the oxidation zone; Abstract)
wherein the ammonia in the waste stream is converted into nitrogen gas (i.e., catalyst configured to catalyze a conversion reaction of ammonia to nitrogen positioned within the catalytic zone; Col. 13, Lines 30-41)
and wherein the catalyst consists mainly of titanium, platinum, and zirconium among other metals (i.e., a metal-based catalyst; Col. 13, Line 66 to Col. 14, Line 6).
Suzuki further discloses that an oxygen containing exhaust gas may be used (Col. 7, Lines 33-38), and especially teaches that the oxygen containing gas is not restricted for the catalytic oxidation reactor including and exhaust gas from the preceding noncatalytic wet oxidation step (Col. 13, Lines 53-65). Suzuki continues to disclose that the efficiency of the noncatalytic wet oxidation reaction is controlled to ranges of 20%-80% with ratios of oxygen theoretically required to degrade COD components being in ranges of 0.5 to 5 times (Col. 7, Lines 13-48). Combining these disclosures, the air from the first reactor at a vol% of oxygen of 21% supplied in a ratio of 1:1 with the influent COD and using an 80% efficiency of reaction, the remaining oxygen content in the gas phase would be 0.21 Oxygen*(1-0.8) = 0.042 or 4.2% oxygen concentration leftover in the exhaust gas from the noncatalytic wet oxidation reactor. Since this is explicitly described as being used as a feed for the catalytic wet oxidation reactor, Suzuki discloses that the catalytic wet oxidation reactor is configured to be operated with oxygen concentrations of less than 6 volume % (i.e., wherein the catalytic zone is configured to be operated under substantially oxygen-free conditions with an oxygen concentration in the catalytic zone gas phase of less than 6 vol.%).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the catalytic zone is configured to be operated under substantially oxygen-free conditions with an oxygen concentration in the catalytic zone gas phase of less than 6 vol.%” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “wherein the wastewater containing organic nitrogen compounds is a spent caustic solution” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitation “wherein the spent caustic solution is a refinery spent caustic solution” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is alternatively rejected and Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a process for purifying a photographic waste containing nitrogen (i.e., a system for treating wastewater containing organic nitrogen compounds, comprising; Col. 1, Lines 5-12)
by successively performing a noncatalytic wet oxidation (i.e., a wet air oxidation unit) with the noncatalytic wet oxidation tower (Fig. 2, #38) being fed by a gas-liquid mixture supply line (i.e., having an inlet fluidly connectable to a source of wastewater containing organic nitrogen compounds; Fig. 2, #30), having a gas exhaust line (i.e., a gas outlet; Fig. 2, #32) after the catalytic wet oxidation tower (Fig. 2, #21), and a treated solution exhaust line (i.e., and a liquid effluent outlet, the wet air oxidation unit comprising; Fig. 2, #33)
wherein the noncatalytic wet oxidation is performed a under pressure to hold the waste solution in a liquid phase while supplying an oxygen containing gas (i.e., with an oxidation zone fluidly connectable to a source of an oxidant)
followed by a catalytic wet oxidation (i.e., a catalytic zone downstream from the oxidation zone; Abstract)
wherein the ammonia in the waste stream is converted into nitrogen gas (i.e., catalyst configured to catalyze a conversion reaction of ammonia to nitrogen positioned within the catalytic zone; Col. 13, Lines 30-41)
and wherein the catalyst consists mainly of titanium, platinum, and zirconium among other metals (i.e., a metal-based catalyst; Col. 13, Line 66 to Col. 14, Line 6).
Suzuki further teaches that an oxygen containing exhaust gas may be used (Col. 7, Lines 33-38), and especially teaches that the oxygen containing gas is not restricted for the catalytic oxidation reactor including and exhaust gas from the preceding noncatalytic wet oxidation step (Col. 13, Lines 53-65). Suzuki continues to teach that the efficiency of the noncatalytic wet oxidation reaction is controlled to ranges of 20%-80% with ratios of oxygen theoretically required to degrade COD components being in ranges of 0.5 to 5 times (Col. 7, Lines 13-48). Combining these disclosures, the air from the first reactor at a vol% of oxygen of 21% supplied in a ratio of 1:1 with the influent COD and using an 80% efficiency of reaction, the remaining oxygen content in the gas phase would be 0.21 Oxygen*(1-0.8) = 0.042 or 4.2% oxygen concentration leftover in the exhaust gas from the noncatalytic wet oxidation reactor (i.e., wherein the catalytic zone is configured to be operated under substantially oxygen-free conditions with an oxygen concentration in the catalytic zone gas phase of less than 6 vol.%).
Suzuki does not teach the explicit oxygen concentration in the catalytic zone gas phase of less than 6 vol.% in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the oxygen vol% range that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range taught by Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki further discloses that the noncatalytic wet oxidation should occur with a space velocity of between 0.5 hr-1 to 5 hr-1 (Col. 7, Lines 1-12) while the catalytic wet oxidation occurs from 0.5 hr-1 to 3 hr-1 (Col. 13, Lines 15-29). Space velocity is a ratio of volumetric flow rate to reactor volume, and so these space velocities demonstrate that volume is an optimizable parameter based upon feed conditions. Choosing a space velocity on the larger side for the noncatalytic reactor and a space velocity on the lower end for the catalytic reactor would result in a noncatalytic reactor with at least about twice a volume of the catalytic reactor, as described in the instant claim.
Suzuki does not explicitly teach wherein a volume of the oxidation zone is at least about twice a volume of the catalytic zone in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to have reactor volumes that correspond to the claimed range while experimenting with the range taught by Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 9, Suzuki further teaches that the towers are in series with a noncatalytic wet oxidation tower (i.e., wherein the oxidation zone is within a first vessel; Fig. 2, #38; Col. 4, Lines 17-18) and a catalytic wet oxidation tower (i.e., and the catalytic zone is within a second vessel fluidly connected to the first vessel; Fig. 2, #21; Col. 4, Line 64) shown in Fig. 2 (Col. 27, Line 66 to Col. 28, Line 49).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al US Patent No. US 5534148 A (hereinafter Suzuki) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maugans et al US Patent Application No. US 20110079560 A1 (hereinafter Maugans).
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki does not teach further comprising at least one ammonia sensor positioned downstream from at least one of the gas outlet and the liquid effluent outlet.
However, Maugans teaches the analysis of the liquid phase downstream from catalytic wet oxidation for ammonia-nitrogen (i.e., further comprising at least one ammonia sensor positioned downstream from the liquid effluent outlet) for the purpose of determining the extent of the ammonia oxidation in the reactor (Paragraphs 0083-0084).
Maugans is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to catalytic wet oxidation systems (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the process as taught by Suzuki with the analysis of ammonia in the liquid effluent as taught by Maugans because the analysis of liquid effluent for ammonia would enable the user to determine the extent of conversion of ammonia to nitrogen in the reactor.
Claims 3-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Harada et al US Patent No. US 4699720 A (hereinafter Harada).
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki further teaches that the catalyst as being in a honeycomb form (i.e., porous) and consisting of ruthenium, nickel, palladium, and platinum (i.e., wherein the metal-based catalyst comprises a group VIIIB metal; Col. 13, Line 66 to Col. 14, Line 10).
Suzuki does not teach wherein there is a substrate coated with the metal catalyst.
However, Harada teaches that the presence of catalysts supported by honeycomb carriers (i.e., a porous substrate coated with a catalyst) is used to decompose suspended solids in high concentration wastes as well as other components contained in the waste water (Col. 1, Line 15 to Col. 2, Line 3).
Harada is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to wet oxidation of ammonia and other chemically oxidizable substances (Abstract, Col. 1, Lines 5-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the process as taught by Suzuki with the substrate underneath the catalyst as taught by Harada because the combined substrate and catalyst would be able to treat both suspended solids in high concentration as well as other components in wastewater.
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki further teaches the catalyst is made from ruthenium, nickel, palladium, and platinum (i.e., wherein the group VIIIB metal is at least one of ruthenium, nickel, palladium, and platinum; Col. 13, Line 66 to Col. 14, Line 10).
Regarding Claim 5, Harada further teaches that the it is conventional to use silica as a carrier for the active components of the catalyst (Col. 6, Lines 44 to 58) and that the wastewater preferably has a pH of 9-11 (i.e., wherein the porous substrate is mechanically stable at a pH of 8.5 or greater; Col. 7, Lines 8-30).
Regarding Claim 6, Harada further teaches that the it is conventional to use silica as a carrier for the active components of the catalyst (i.e., wherein the porous substrate comprises a silica-type material; Col. 6, Lines 44 to 58) and that the wastewater preferably has a pH of 9-11 (Col. 7, Lines 8-30).
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the oxidation zone and the catalytic zone are within a single vessel.
However, Harada teaches a first reaction zone (Fig. 1, #21) and a second reaction zone (Fig. 1, #39) where the first oxidation zone does not have a catalyst and utilizes oxygen-containing gas and the second reaction zone contains a honeycomb catalyst and again subjects the waste water to liquid phase oxidation (Col. 11, Lines 32-64) for the purpose of simultaneously decomposing suspended solids and other components contained in the waste water (Col. 1, Line 57 to Col. 2, Line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the process as taught by Suzuki with the reaction zones contained in a single vessel as taught by Harada because the reactor would be able to treat both suspended solids in high concentration as well as other components in the wastewater.
Conclusion
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights