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/Restriction
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on October 10, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-26 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 October 10, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-7, 27, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014126965 A1 (hereinafter US 965) in view of US 20190248681 (US 681)
Regarding claim 1, US 965 discloses a method of treating water (see US 965 claim 17 and figures 1 & 9).
US 965 discloses providing a water comprising a first concentration of at least one organic contaminant (see US 965 paragraphs 0001, 0004, 0026-0028).
US 965 discloses performing a first treatment on the water comprising an advanced oxidation process (AOP), the first treatment being effective to oxidize a predetermined amount of the at least one organic contaminant and produce a first treated water having a second concentration of the at least one organic contaminant (see US 965 paragraphs 0032
US 965 discloses an AOP that is a combination of ozonation and UV irradiation (see US 965 paragraph 0032). US 965 does not disclose an advanced oxidation process (AOP) with hydrogen perxoide.
US 681 discloses a system and method for the advanced oxidation of wastewater (see US 681 abstract and figures 1A-1B). US 681 discloses that
[A]lthough ozone has been proven effective in degrading many pollutants, some of the compounds are recalcitrant to it. Superior degradation of organic pollutants can be achieved using highly reactive hydroxyl radicals that are generated using an advance oxidation process, Combination of ozone and hydrogen peroxide is commonly used to generate hydroxyl radicals. Sato et al. reported that their AOP process (ozone dose of 6 mg/L, and H.sub.2O.sub.2/O.sub.3 mole ratio of 0.5) was effective in reducing 29 out 37 PPCPs and EDCs below the detection limit. Lin et al. reported that addition of hydrogen peroxide in ozonated water accelerated the degradation of several antibiotics (Sulfamethoxazole, Sulfadimethoxine, Sulfamethazine, Erythromycin, and Tylosin). Snyder et al. recommended that AOP could be used when sufficient contact time is not available for ozone-only process due to higher degradation kinetics of AOP.
(see US 681 paragraph 0092; see also US 681 paragraphs 0011, 0038).
US 681 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. advance oxidation process system for treatment of water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the AOP of US 965 with the ozone/hydrogen peroxide AOP, as discloses in US 681 because it would assist with the removal/reduction in organic contaminants in water and/or because the combination of ozone and hydrogen peroxide assist in achieving superior degradation of organic pollutants and/or because the combination of ozone and hydrogen peroxide assist in the reduction/destruction of additional contaminants, such as antibiotics.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the AOP of US 965 with the ozone/hydrogen peroxide AOP, as discloses in US 681 because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of generating a radical and/or treatment of water and/or reduction/destruction of contaminants in water.
Hence, US 965 in view of US 681 is deemed to disclose method of treating water, comprising providing a water comprising a first concentration of at least one organic contaminant; performing a first treatment on the water comprising an advanced oxidation process (AOP) with a hydrogen peroxide (H202) containing reagent, the first treatment being effective to oxidize a predetermined amount of the at least one organic contaminant and produce a first treated water having a second concentration of the at least one organic contaminant.
US 965 in view of US 681 discloses electrochemically treating the first treated water with an electrochemical cell comprising a cathode and an anode comprising an anodic oxidation material to produce a second treated water having a third concentration of the at least one organic contaminant see US 965 paragraphs 0014, 0016, 0020, 0032, 0033 (US 965 discloses “anodic oxidation and removed from the process water. A boron doped diamond anode and platinum (Pt), iridium or rubidium oxide (IrO2, RuO2) on titanium (Ti) substrate can be used for anode material in the electrolytic cell graphite (see US 965 paragraph 0032).).
Regarding claim 4, US 965 in view of US 681 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 965 in view of US 681 discloses the predetermined amount of the at least one organic contaminant oxidized is at least about 25% of the at least one organic contaminant in the water (see US 965 figures 6-7; see US 681 figure 9).
The materials and the step(s) of US 965 in view of US 681 will necessarily result in predetermined amount of the at least one organic contaminant oxidized is at least about 25% of the at least one organic contaminant in the water, as recited in claim 1. The materials and the step(s) of US 965 in view of US 681 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and step and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 5, US 965 in view of US 681 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 965 in view of US 681 discloses the anodic oxidation material is selected from platinum, titanium oxide, graphite, boron doped diamond (BDD), and combinations thereof (see US 965 paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 6, US 965 in view of US 681 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 965 in view of US 681 discloses measuring a concentration of the at least one organic contaminant in at least one of the water, the first treated water, and the second treated water (see US 965 figures 2-7; see US 681 figure 9).
Regarding claim 7 and regarding claim 30, US 965 in view of US 681 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 965 in view of US 681 discloses controlling a parameter of the first treatment responsive to the measured concentration of the at least one organic contaminant, as recited in claim 7, and discloses the parameter is selected from concentration of the H202 containing reagent, rate of introducing the H202 containing reagent, flow rate, pH, and temperature, as recited in claim 30 (see US 681 paragraphs 0040, 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 27, US 965 in view of US 681 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 965 in view of US 681 does not disclose dosing the first treated water with a second amount of the H202 containing reagent. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to repeat the step of dosing with a second amount of hydrogen peroxide in the method of US 965 in view of US 681 since it has been held that mere duplication of an element, such as repeating the addition of hydrogen peroxide to the first treated water, involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. Like the apparatus at issue in In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to repeat the step of dosing with a second amount of hydrogen peroxide in the method of US 965 in view of US 681 since it would assist with treatment of the contaminated water.
Regarding claim 28, US 965 in view of US 681 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 965 in view of US 681 discloses the anodic oxidation material is boron doped diamond (BDD) (see US 965 paragraph 0032).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments and remarks are deemed to overcome the prior art rejections.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. See rejection(s) above.
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 BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights