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
Claims 10-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/27/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 6 contain similar language to describe the amendment: “a sorbent and a halogen source”, “a halogenated sorbent”, and “a halogen-containing sorbent”. The specification does not clearly describe the differences between these embodiments (if any exists) and therefore for the purpose of this Office Action they are treated as being identical in scope.
Claims 1-3 recite “pore water”. For the purpose of this Office Action “pore water” is given its meaning in the art, the water that occupies the spaces in-between soil particles and within pores, rather than the literal meaning of exclusively the water that is inside the pores of materials, such as soil particles. This is consistent with how “pore water” is used within the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a halogen-containing sorbent". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a bromine-containing activated carbon". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable and Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are allowable. Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to Claim 1 is given by NPL “Removal of mercury from water by fixed bed activated carbon columns” Goyal et al. in view of US 6953494 B2 Nelson. Claim 1 requires “A method of protecting aquatic, marine, and/or swamp organisms from mercury toxicity, comprising Identifying a sample in the aquatic, marine and/or swamp ecosystem, treating the sample with an amendment”. Goyal et al. identifies the toxicity of mercury, especially methyl mercury (“The mercury vapors obtained from burning of coal are dissolved in oxygenated rainwater and carried into waterways, which are the source of domestic water supply. The microbial decomposition of this dissolved mercury converts it into methyl mercury, which is the most poisonous form of mercury.” [Page 1009, Paragraph 1]) and methods of removing it “The activated carbon under this study was saturated with water to remove the entrapped air and was packed in the glass column supported on perforated plates. A solution containing Hg(II) ion of known concentration at a pH=6 was prepared and pumped into an overhead tank with overflow for maintaining a constant head.” [Page 1010, Section 2.2].
Claim 1 further requires “the amendment comprising a sorbent and a halogen source, and/or a halogenated sorbent, and reducing the amount and/or production of methylmercury in the sample, where the content of methylmercury in a pore water in the ecosystem is reduced by at least 60 percent.”. Goyal et al. is silent towards a halogen, however they do disclose activated carbon (see above). Nelson is similarly directed to methods of removing mercury and discloses a brominated activated carbon “The mercury sorbent is prepared by treating a carbonaceous substrate with an effective amount of a bromine-containing gas for a sufficient time to increase the ability of the carbonaceous substrate to adsorb mercury and mercury-containing compounds. In some aspects of the invention, the bromine-containing gas comprises at least one of elemental bromine and hydrogen bromide. In some aspects of the invention, the carbonaceous substrate comprises activated carbon.” [Col. 4, lines 58-67]. Furthermore, Nelson discloses a bromine wt % of between 1-30 % “Any level of bromination of carbonaceous substrates appears to increase their mercury-removal performance. While over 30 wt % of Br(g) can be adsorbed into some powdered activated carbons, for example, significant increases in mercury reactivity will be observed with only about 1 wt % Br2(g) in the PAC.” [Col. 8, lines 35-40]. Therefore it is understood that the bromine containing sorbent material of Nelson is substantially similar, or the same, as the Br-PAC (8 wt% Br) and HBr-PAC (8 wt% Br) disclosed by Example 5 of the instant application specification [0060].
However, Nelson discloses an intended use of removing mercury vapors from flue gas, not treating aqueous mercury in a pore water. Therefore there exists no teaching, suggestion, or motivation from either Goyal et al. or Nelson to have used a brominated activated carbon for the removal of aqueous mercury from an aquatic ecosystem.
Claims 2-5 and 8-9 depend upon Claim 1 and are allowable for similar reasons. Claims 6-7 depend upon Claim 1 and are potentially allowable for similar reasons.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Note: the Examiner left a voice message with applicant’s counsel Nathaniel Dunn on 3/27/26 to attempt to resolve the indefiniteness rejections by Examiner’s Amendment. As of 4/2/26, the Examiner had not yet heard back from Mr. Dunn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights