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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-11, directed to a system, in the reply filed on 21 JANUARY 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 JANUARY 2026.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-11
Withdrawn Claims: 12-23
Cancelled Claims: 24-31
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “220” has been used to designate both an ammonia sensor and a pH control subsystem. In the specification, the ammonia sensor is referred to as 212. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Content of Specification
The specification is missing reference to related applications, see the section below for more details.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Minor Informalities
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 2, Line 4, “Th method” should read “The method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Sensidyne®”, “Grainger®”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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. 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).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US Patent No. 5534148 A) hereinafter Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maugans et al (US Patent Application No. 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 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
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. 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
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
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772