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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/16/2026. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (“Functionalized Mesoporous Silicon Nanomaterials in Inorganic Soil Pollution Research: Opportunities for Soil Protection and Advanced Chemical Imaging,” Current Pollution Reports (2020) 6:264–280) in view of Delacôte et al. (“Factors affecting the reactivity of thiol-functionalized mesoporous silica adsorbents toward mercury(II),” Talanta 79 (2009) 877–886), Fang et al. (“In Situ Selective Measurement Based on Diffusive Gradients in Thin Films Technique with Mercapto-Functionalized Mesoporous Silica for High-Resolution Imaging of SbIII in Soil,” Anal. Chem. 2020, 92, 3581-3588), Chemistry, Environmental Science (“Determination of mercury in aqua regia and nitric acid digests with cold-vapor atomic spectrometry or cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry 1,” (2005)) and Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 109580762 to Wu et al.
Yang et al. teaches the use of functionalized mesoporous silicon nanomaterials that are used in gradients-in-thin films (DGT) to adsorb mercury and the use of functional groups including amino groups for the adsorption of metal ions in water. (Abstract and page 267, right-hand column, lines 4-8 and 29-30).
Yang et al. does not teach functionalized mesoporous silicon with thiol groups. (Title)
Delacôte et al. teaches functionalizing mesoporous silicon with thiol groups for adsorbing Hg(II). (Abstract)
Fang et al. teaches that the use of polyacrylamide diffusive gel layers that include mercapto-functionalized SBA-15 nanoparticles are known to be used in DGTs. (page 3582 “DGT Procedures”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang et al.’s use of mesoporous silicon modified with amino groups to further include thiol groups as taught by Delacôte et al., use the same in a DGT device as taught by Yang et al. to adsorb Hg(II) from a water sample, and to incorporate the amino- and thio-modified mesoporous silicon into a polyacrylamide gel diffusion layer as taught by Fang et al. based on Delacôte et al. teaching the use of thiol groups for adsorbing Hg(II) and Yang et al. teaching using amino groups for adsorbing metal ions in water.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al. do not teach eluting a Hg(II)-adsorbed DGT device using reverse aqua regia.
Chemistry, Environmental Science teaches that is it known to use aqua regia to recover mercury from soil, sludge and waste.
It would have been obvious to modify Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al. to elute Hg(II) from the Hg(II)-adsorbed DGT device using reverse aqua regia as taught by Chemistry, Environmental Science for purposes of determining the amount of Hg collected from waste water.
Regarding the concentration of the mercury in the Hg(II) containing eluate, it would have been obvious to test water samples that provided any concentration of mercury in the Hg(II) containing eluate, including a concentration equal or higher than 0.5 ng/mL.
Regarding the newly recited limitations in claim 1 of the shell, filter membrane and the diffusion layer, Wu et al. teaches that DGTs include shells (page 2, 3rd full paragraph English translation) and Fang et al. teaches a protective “filter” membrane made from polyethersulfone having a pore size of 0.45 μm pore size and a thickness of 0.14 mm and an agarose-cross-linked polyacrylamide diffusive gel layer. (page 3582 “DGT Procedures”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Wu et al., Fang et al., and Chemistry, Environmental Science to include a shell as taught by Wu et al., the filter membrane and diffusion layer as taught by Fang et al. which are known elements of DCTs.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al. and Chemistry, Environmental Science does not teach that mesoporous silicon material double-modified by thiol and amino groups has a molar ratio of (4- 6):1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation on Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al. and Chemistry, Environmental Science to determine a suitable molar ratio of thiol and amino groups to adsorb a desired amount of Hg, including a molar ratio of (4-6):1.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al. and Chemistry, Environmental Science does not teach that the diffusion layer has a thickness of 0.8 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation on Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al. and Chemistry, Environmental Science to determine a suitable thickness of the diffusion layer, including a thickness of 0.8 mm.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the adsorption is conducted for longer than or equal to 24 h.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. does not teach how long the adsorption is conducted.
It would have been obvious to conduct the adsorption in Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. over any desirable time, including 24 hours or longer to adsorb a sufficient amount of Hg(II).
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the Hg(II)-containing eluate has an acidity of higher than or equal to 40%.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. does not teach that the Hg(II)-containing eluate has an acidity of higher than or equal to 40%.
It would have been obvious to conduct the routine engineering optimization experimentation in Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. to determine a suitable acidity of the Hg(II) eluate to obtained a desired amount of eluted Hg(II), including an acidity of 40% or higher.
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
2. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Douthitt (“The evolution and applications of multicollector ICPMS (MC-ICPMS),” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 390, pg. 437-440, 16 OCT. 2007).
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites performing an enrichment process when the eluate has the mercury concentration of lower than 0.5 ng/mL; the enrichment is conducted by a first enrichment method or a second enrichment method; the first enrichment method comprises: reducing the Hg(II) by adding a reducing agent to the eluent to obtain a reduction system; blowing nitrogen into the reduction system to reverse-enrich reduced Hg(0) into diluted reverse aqua regia with a volume percentage of 40%, to obtain an Hg(II)- containing eluate that meets the criteria for MC-ICP-MS analysis; wherein the reducing agent is a SnCl2 aqueous solution with a concentration of 0.2 g/mL; and the nitrogen is blown at a flow rate of lower than or equal to 200 mL/min for 2 h.
Chemistry, Environmental Science teaches using SnCl2 for reducing extractions from soil, sludge and waste.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. does not teach blowing nitrogen into the reduction system to reverse-enrich reduced Hg(0) into diluted reverse aqua regia with a volume percentage of 40%, to obtain an Hg(II)- containing eluate that meets the criteria for MC-ICP-MS analysis; wherein the reducing agent is a SnCl2 aqueous solution with a concentration of 0.2 g/mL; and the nitrogen is blown at a flow rate of lower than or equal to 200 mL/min for 2 h.
Douthitt teaches the use of MC-ICP-MS to conduct analysis of Hg isotopes. (page 4, 2nd full paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al., by reducing the Hg(II) eluate using ScCl2 as taught by Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. and prepare for MC-ICP-MS analysis as taught by Douthitt by blowing nitrogen (an inert gas) into the reduction system to reverse-enrich reduced Hg(0) into diluted reverse aqua regia with a suitable volume percentage, including a volume percentage of 40%, determined by routine optimization experimentation to obtain an Hg(II)- containing eluate that is suitable for MC-ICP-MS analysis as taught by Douthitt.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation on Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt determine a suitable concentration of SnCl2 and a suitable flow rate of nitrogen to provide suitable MC-ICP-MS analysis, including a concentration of 0.2 g/mL of SnCl2 and a nitrogen flow rate of lower than or equal to 200 mL/min for 2 h.
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 3 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 3 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites the second enrichment method comprises: conducting elution on a plurality of the NSBA gels in the Hg(II)-adsorbed DGT device, and combining obtained eluates to gain an Hg(II)-containing eluate that meets the criteria for MC-ICP-MS analysis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt by conducting elution on a plurality of the NSBA gels in the Hg(II)-adsorbed DGT device, and combining obtained eluates to gain an Hg(II)-containing eluate that meets the criteria for MC- ICP-MS analysis.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Douthitt renders claim 4 obvious.
3. Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, claim 6 recites conducting in-situ enrichment on a water sample by the in-situ enrichment method according to claim 1 to obtain an Hg(II)-containing eluate; detecting the Hg(II)-containing eluate by multicollector inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS) to obtain measured values of δ202Hg, Δ199Hg, and Δ201Hg; and conducting correction on the measured value of δ202Hg to obtain an actual value of δ202Hg of the water to be tested; wherein the correction has a correction value of -0.18%.
As noted above, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. render the enrichment method of claim 1 obvious.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science does not teach detecting the Hg(II)-containing eluate by multicollector inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS) to obtain measured values of δ202Hg, Δ199Hg, and Δ201Hg; and conducting correction on the measured value of δ202Hg to obtain an actual value of δ202Hg of the water to be tested; wherein the correction has a correction value of -0.18%.
As noted above, Douthitt teaches the use of MC-ICP-MS to conduct analysis of Hg isotopes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Wu et al. to detect the Hg(II)-containing eluate by multicollector inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS) to obtain measured values of δ202Hg, Δ199Hg, and Δ201Hg in view of Douthitt teaching the use of MC-ICP-MS to conduct analysis of Hg isotopes.
It would further have been obvious to conduct correction on the measured value of δ202Hg to obtain an actual value of δ202Hg of the water to be tested, wherein the correction has an appropriate experimentally determined correction value of -0.18%.
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 6 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 6 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the adsorption is conducted for longer than or equal to 24 h.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt does not teach how long the adsorption is conducted.
It would have been obvious to conduct the adsorption in Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt over any desirable time, including 24 hours or longer to adsorb a sufficient amount of Hg(II).
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 7 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 6 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
As noted above, Chemistry, Environmental Science teaches using SnCl2 for reducing extractions from soil, sludge and waste.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt does not teach blowing nitrogen into the reduction system to reverse-enrich reduced Hg(0) into diluted reverse aqua regia with a volume percentage of 40%, to obtain an Hg(II)- containing eluate that meets the criteria for MC-ICP-MS analysis; wherein the reducing agent is a SnCl2 aqueous solution with a concentration of 0.2 g/mL; and the nitrogen is blown at a flow rate of lower than or equal to 200 mL/min for 2 h.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt by reducing the Hg(II) eluate using ScCl2 as taught by Chemistry, Environmental Science and prepare for MC-ICP-MS analysis as taught by Douthitt by blowing nitrogen (an inert gas) into the reduction system to reverse-enrich reduced Hg(0) into diluted reverse aqua regia with a suitable volume percentage, including a volume percentage of 40%, determined by routine optimization experimentation to obtain an Hg(II)- containing eluate that is suitable for MC-ICP-MS analysis as taught by Douthitt.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation on Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt determine a suitable concentration of SnCl2 and a suitable flow rate of nitrogen to provide suitable MC-ICP-MS analysis, including a concentration of 0.2 g/mL of SnCl2 and a nitrogen flow rate of lower than or equal to 200 mL/min for 2 h.
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science and Douthitt renders claim 8 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 8 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that the second enrichment method comprises: conducting elution on a plurality of the NSBA gels in the Hg(II)-adsorbed DGT device, and combining obtained eluates to gain an Hg(II)-containing eluate that meets the criteria for MC- ICP-MS analysis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt by conducting elution on a plurality of the NSBA gels in the Hg(II)-adsorbed DGT device, and combining obtained eluates to gain an Hg(II)-containing eluate that meets the criteria for MC- ICP-MS analysis.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 9 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 6 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the Hg(II)-containing eluate has an acidity of higher than or equal to 40%.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt does not teach that the Hg(II)-containing eluate has an acidity of higher than or equal to 40%.
It would have been obvious to conduct the routine engineering optimization experimentation in Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt to determine a suitable acidity of the Hg(II) eluate to obtained a desired amount of eluted Hg(II), including an acidity of 40% or higher.
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 10 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 6 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS using GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt does not teach that quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS using GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt to provide quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS as taught by Douthitt using any appropriate standards for comparison, including GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 11 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 7 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS using GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt does not teach that quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS using GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt to provide quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS as taught by Douthitt using any appropriate standards for comparison, including GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 12 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 8 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS using GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt does not teach that quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS using GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt to provide quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS as taught by Douthitt using any appropriate standards for comparison, including GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 13 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS using GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt does not teach that quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS using GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt to provide quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS as taught by Douthitt using any appropriate standards for comparison, including GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 14 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 10 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS using GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt does not teach that quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS using GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify above Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt to provide quality control of the water sample is conducted by MC-ICP-MS as taught by Douthitt using any appropriate standards for comparison, including GBW07405 and BCR-482 solid standard materials together with NIST SRM 3133 and NIST SRM 8610 mercury isotope standard solutions as external standards as well as an NIST 997 Tl standard solution as the internal standard.
Therefore, Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry, Environmental Science, Wu et al. and Douthitt renders claim 15 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yang et al. teaches only FMSN as a DGT binding phase (FIG. 1) and that there is no description of using FMSN together with other substances (such a polyacrylamide hydrogel) as a DGT substrate.
As noted above, Fang et al. teaches protective “filter” membrane made from polyethersulfone having a pore size of 0.45 μm pore size and a thickness of 0.14 mm and an agarose-cross-linked polyacrylamide “diffusive gel layer.” (page 3582 “DGT Procedures”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Yang et al. in view of Delacôte et al., Fang et al., Chemistry and Environmental Science to include shell as taught by Wu et al. and to include the filter membrane and diffusion layer as taught by Fang et al. which are known elements of DCTs.
Applicant further argues that the adsorption membrane for adsorbing metal antimony disclosed by Fang et al. may not necessarily be able to adsorb mercury.
As noted above, Fang et al. has been relied upon as teaching the use of polyacrylamide diffusive gel layers that include mercapto-functionalized SBA-15 nanoparticles are known to be used in DGTs and a protective “filter” membrane made from polyethersulfone having a pore size of 0.45 μm pore size and a thickness of 0.14 mm and an agarose-cross-linked polyacrylamide “diffusive gel layer.”
As noted above, Delacôte et al. teaches functionalizing mesoporous silicon with thiol groups for adsorbing Hg(II), and Yang et al. has been modified to use mesoporous silicon modified with amino groups to further include thiol groups as taught by Delacôte et al.
Applicant argues that only thiol group modified mesoporous silicon materials can be used to adsorb mercury and that it is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable molar ratio of thiol and amino groups to adsorb a desired amount of Hg, including a molar ratio of (4-6) : 1.
Yang et al. teaches functionalized mesoporous silicon materials with an amino or mercapto for removing metal ions and the use of FMSN in soil will be considered with some specific case studies focusing on Hg and As. (Abstract and Table 2).
The teachings of Yang et al. together with Delacôte et al. would provide motivation to one skilled in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine a suitable molar ratio of thiol and amino groups to adsorb a desired amount of Hg, including a molar ratio of (4-6) : 1.
Applicant argues that the elution efficiency of reverse aqua regia renders the use of reverse aqua regia unobvious over the use of aqua regia.
Aqua regia is a 3:1 mixture of HCl to HNO3, while reverse aqua regia is a 1:3 mixture of HCl to HNO3. Thus, aqua regia is more corrosive to metal while reverse aqua regia is less corrosive and more suitable to analytic applications.
One skilled in the art would be lead to using reverse aqua regia to determine the amount of mercury in sample over aqua regia due to the less corrosiveness of reverse aqua regia.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lomontea et al. (“Comparative study of hotplate wet digestion methods for the determination
of mercury in biosolids,” Chemosphere 72 (2008) 1420–1424) teaches that Aqua regia is a 3:1 mixture of HCl to HNO3, while reverse aqua regia is a 1:3 mixture of HCl to HNO3.
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 MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights