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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 10th, 2025 has been entered. Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of Claims 7 and 8 and the introduction of new Claim 11. Claims 1-6 and 9-11 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the objections and 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 9th, 2025. Therefore, the objections and rejections under 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 10th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding pH range of 4.0 to 7.0 are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Ma (CN-102897893-A) allegedly “requires” a slightly alkaline environment due to formation of Fe(OH)3 colloid and therefore teaches away from operating at pH 4.0-7.0. However, Ma contains no pH limitation and nowhere states that its ZVI-chlorine system is limited to alkaline conditions or inoperable at mildly acidic or neutral pH. Applicant’s discussion of Fe(OH)3 formation reflects their own interpretation of iron chemistry, not an express teaching in Ma. Ma broadly teaches treating water containing organic matter by adding iron material (including iron simple substance / ZVI) and chlorine or hypochlorite to the water to be treated, without restriction on pH. Furthermore, Huang (WO-2011035263-A2) explicitly teaches substantially neutral pH conditions (pH 6-8) for ZVI-based redox systems employing dissolved oxidants, including hypochlorite. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would therefore understand that ZVI/oxidant systems, including those using hypochlorite, operate effectively within the claimed pH 4.0-7.0 range.
Applicant has not shown that pH 4.0-7.0 is critical or produces results that are unexpected relative to Ma or Huang. This range represents a sub-range of the broader 4.0-9.0 range disclosed in applicant’s own specification, and narrowing to a preferred portion of a known range is ordinarily considered routine optimization absent evidence of criticality, which applicant has not provided. Accordingly, the pH limitation does not overcome the obviousness of claim 1.
Applicant further asserts that Ma does not teach a ZVI:hypochlorite ratio within 2-20 and challenges the support for Ma’s disclosed chlorine/iron dosage ranges. These arguments are also not persuasive. Ma explicitly teaches that the mass ratio of iron material to chlorine may be 0.2-500:1, which encompasses the claimed molar ratio of 2-20 when iron simple substance / iron powder us used. Applicant’s attempts to undermine Ma’s internal support for this range do not rebut its validity as prior art. Prior art is presumed enabling unless shown otherwise, and an examiner does not re-examine a reference under §112. Applicant has also not demonstrated that the claimed 2-20 ratio is critical or yields results that are unexpected relative to neighboring ratios within Ma’s disclosed range. Applicant’s own examples lie within this region but do not establish any special behavior at the boundaries of 2 or 20. As such, the claimed ratio represents routine adjustment of dosage parameters, which Ma clearly teaches are adjustable over a broad range. In addition, Guo (CN-104276646-A) further reinforces that oxidant activate-dosage and ZVI/oxidant ratios are well recognized in the art as tunable over extremely wide concentration ranges (0.001 mM-10 M oxidant), confirming that optimization of the ZVI/oxidant relationship would have been well within the ordinary skill level. Therefore the ZVI:hypochlorite ratio in claim 1 does not distinguish the claimed method from the teachings of Ma in view of Huang and/or Guo.
Applicant repeatedly argues that the claimed invention operates through a “heterogenous micro-interface redox mechanism” generating highly active hydroxyl radicals, whereas Ma purportedly relies on Fe(IV) intermediates. These mechanistic distinctions do not confer patentability.
Claim 1 does not recite any mechanistic limitation. Under established USPTO precedent, unclaimed mechanisms described in the specification cannot distinguish the claimed method from the prior art if the same process steps are performed. Ma’s system employs ZVI (iron simple substance) reacting with hypochlorous acid and explicitly discloses Fe(0)/Fe(II)/Fe(IV) redox interactions that occur at the solid-liquid interface of ZVI particles, i.e., a heterogenous micro-environment. Any hydroxyl radicals generated inherently by these reactions do not patentably distinguish the system.
To the extent that claim 11 recites mechanistic language, the Examiner notes that heterogenous reaction at a ZVI surface, redox between ZVI and hypochlorite, and formation of reactive oxygen species (including hydroxyl radicals) are all inherent consequences of operating a ZVI + hypochlorite system such as that disclosed by Ma. Huang and Guo similarly employ heterogenous ZVI/oxidant systems with the same inherent phenomena. Adding mechanistic description of what inherently occurs during the practice of a known process does not render the claim non-obvious.
Applicant’s arguments concerning different organic pollutants are also not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ma treats 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (“TCP”), which they characterize as more readily oxidized, whereas the present claims address pollutants such as BA, ATZ, CBZ, and NB. This distinction is not persuasive.
Claim 1 recites treating “organic pollutants in water” without restriction to any specific class, and Ma is likewise directed to the treatment of water containing organic matter, using TCP only as a representative pollutant. Applying a known ZVI + hypochlorite oxidation system, such as Ma’s, to additional known organic micropollutants would have been an obvious extension within the routine skill of practitioners in the water-treatment field.
Dependent claim 6, which merely enumerates specific pollutants (BA, ATZ, CBZ, NB), does not alter this conclusion. Applicant has not demonstrated any surprising selectivity, inhibition-resistance, or unique behavior associated with these compounds that would render their treatment non-obvious. Rather, their removal using oxidative ZVI systems represents predictable performance of a known advanced oxidation process.
Applicant’s arguments related to by-product formation are not persuasive. Applicant references alleged reductions in disinfection byproducts (DPBs) relative to traditional chlorine disinfection. However, the claims do not recite any limitation relating to DBP reduction or a comparative performance requirement. Applicant has also not provided comparative data demonstrating that the claimed pH range or ZVI:hypochlorite ratio causes a materially different DBP profile relative to Ma’s ZVI + chlorine system or to ZVI/oxidant systems such as in Huang or Guo. Evidence of general advantages of ZVI + hypochlorite relative to chlorine alone is not relevant to distinguishing over prior-art ZVI + hypochlorite processes. Accordingly, the asserted byproduct advantages do not differentiate the claimed method from the combined teachings of the prior art.
Applicant’s assertion that Guo is limited to heavy-metal removal and is not relevant to the oxidant concentration used in the claims is not persuasive. Guo expressly discloses water-treatment methods using ZVI particles activated by common oxidants including hypochlorite. It teaches ZVI beds, fluidized beds, and column configurations where ZVI surfaces are continuously activated by oxidants to generate reactive Fe(III)/(II) species. Guo’s teaching of oxidant concentration ranges (0.001mM to 10M) and its explicit inclusion of hypochlorite provide clear motivation and reasonable expectation of success for adjusting oxidant dosage and reactor configuration within ZVI/hypochlorite systems in general. Thus, Guo is proper analogous art, and its teachings support the Examiner’s position regarding the obviousness of claim 4.
For the reasons set forth above, applicant’s arguments do no overcome the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. §103. The amendments to claim 1 resolved the previously outstanding §112(b) issue, but the substantive limitations added do not render the claims patentable over the cited art. The rejections are therefore maintained and made final.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN-102897893-A an English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Huang (WO-2011035263-A2).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a method of removing organic pollutants in water (Ma in various embodiments “not limited by enumerating” par. [0020] discloses a method of treating [abstract] and removing organic matter, including but not limited to, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol par. [0018]), comprising the steps of:
(a) weighing zero-valent iron in solid form (Ma par. [0046] describes grams per Liter of iron powder which must be weighed);
(b) preparing a mother liquor of hypochlorite (Ma par. [0049] indicates a dilution of Clorox has been made to obtain a specific solution concentration); where a molar ratio of the zero-valent iron in solid form to the mother liquor of hypochlorite is 2-20 (Ma par. [0032] discloses that the mass ratio of described iron simple substance and chlorine is (2 ~500):1 which equates to a molar ratio of 1.27~317.41 which encompasses this range), and a final concentration of hypochlorite in the mixer is 0.02~5 mmol/L (Ma par. [0046] indicates 3.8mg/L of clorox which equates to 0.051 mmol/L hypochlorite).
Ma does not disclose step ( c) adjusting a pH of the water containing organic pollutants to 4.0-7.0; ( d) adding the zero-valent iron in solid form and the mother liquor of hypochlorite to the water containing organic pollutants in a mixer, and ( e) turning on the mixer to carry out stirring reaction to remove the organic pollutants in the water.
Huang discloses a method of removing organic pollutants in water (Huang par. [0072]) by zero-valent iron (Huang par. [0074]) enhanced hypochlorite (Huang par. [0079]), comprising the steps of: (a) weighing zero-valent iron in solid form (Huang par. [00131] step 2); (c) adjusting a pH of raw water containing organic pollutants to 4.0-7.0 (Huang par. [00134b] "6.5-7.5" disclosing a portion of this range); (d) adding the zero-valent iron solid and the mother liquor of hypochlorite to the raw water containing organic pollutants in a mixer (Huang par. 0045] discloses using a motorized stirrer and par. [0124] describes it being used to provide the mixing condition) and (e) turning on the mixer to carry out stirring reaction to remove the organic pollutants in the raw water. (Huang uses a motorized stirrer which would require being "turned on" to provide the mixing condition described in par. [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang to the method of Ma. Huang expressly teaches adjusting the raw water to a pH within 6.5-7.5 (Huang par. 0129]) in a ZVI + oxidant treatment process for the purpose of promoting the desired oxidation reactions (Huang par. [0049]). Because Ma employs the same redox chemistry to oxidize organic pollutants, applying Huang’s pH adjustment technique to Ma represents the predictable use of a known process parameter from a closely related system to achieve the same function. Further, Huang teaches using a motorized mixer to introduce ZVI and oxidant and to sustain the heterogenous reaction between solid ZVI particles and dissolved oxidant (Huang par. [0045, 0124]). Ma also employs a heterogenous ZVI-oxidant system, in which a reaction occurs at the solid-liquid interface; such systems inherently require dispersion of ZVI particles into the aqueous phase for the reaction to proceed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have recognized that applying Huang’s mixing approach to Ma would predictably improve reagent dispersion and reaction efficiency in Ma’s ZVI/hypochlorite oxidation process.
Both references treat water contaminants using ZVI and dissolved oxidants, and both operate through heterogenous redox pathways. Incorporating Huang’s pH control and mixing steps into Ma’s method would constitute nothing more than the predictable use of known techniques to optimize a known ZVI-based oxidation process.
Regarding claim 2, Ma in view of Huang discloses the method of claim 1, characterized in that, the zero-valent iron in step (a) is selected from the group consisting of ordinary zero-valent iron (Ma abstract described the iron as iron raw material which is ordinary zero-valent iron), phosphorylated zero valent iron and borated zero valent iron.
Regarding claim 3, Ma in view of Huang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a particle size of the zero-valent iron in step (a) is 10nm~50μm (Ma par. [0020] discloses that the various embodiments of the disclosure are not limited by their number or combination. Ma par. [0026] introduces an embodiment where the iron may optionally be an “iron simple substance” and par. [0027] discloses that optionally the iron simple substance may be nano zero valence iron which are 1nm to 100nm in size).
Regarding claim 5, Ma in view of Huang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the hypochlorite in step (b) is selected from one or more of the group consisting of: sodium hypochlorite (Ma par. [0037] describes that Clorox or Losantin or mixtures of each are used as the source of hypochlorite), calcium hypochlorite (Ma par. [0037] “Losantin”) and magnesium hypochlorite.
Regarding claim 6, Ma in view of Huang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the organic pollutants in the raw water in step (c) is one or more of benzoic acid, atrazine (Huang par. [0072] discloses that chlorinated organics may be treated which would include atrazine), carbamazepine and nitrobenzene.
Regarding claim 9, Ma in view of Huang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a rotation speed of the mixer in step (e) is 100 - 200 r/min (Huang par. [00124] discloses the rpm of the motorized stirrer is adjustable 100-2000).
Regarding claim 10, Ma in view of Huang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a reaction time of the stirring reaction in step (e) is 10 min - 60 min (Ma discloses that the oxidation treatment time is 1min ~ 60min and would have been obvious to use the motorized stirrer of Huang during that time).
Regarding claim 11, Ma in view of Huang discloses a method of removing organic pollutants in water (Ma in various embodiments “not limited by enumerating” par. [0020] discloses a method of treating [abstract] and removing organic matter, including but not limited to, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol par. [0018]) by zero-valent iron (Ma claim 2 “iron simple substance” / par. [0027] “zero-valent iron”) and hypochlorite (Ma par. [0046] “clorox”), comprising the steps of:
(a) weighing zero-valent iron in solid form (Ma par. [0046] describes grams per Liter of iron powder which must be weighed);
(b) preparing a mother liquor of hypochlorite (Ma par. [0049] indicates a dilution of Clorox has been made to obtain a specific solution concentration);
(c) adjusting a pH of the water containing organic pollutants to 4.0-7.0 (Huang par. [00134b] "6.5-7.5" disclosing a portion of this range);
( d) adding the zero-valent iron in solid form and the mother liquor of hypochlorite to the water containing organic pollutants in a mixer (Huang par. 0045] discloses using a motorized stirrer and par. [0124] describes it being used to provide the mixing condition), wherein a molar ratio of the zero-valent iron in solid form to the mother liquor of hypochlorite is 2-20 (Ma par. [0032] discloses that the mass ratio of described iron simple substance and chlorine is (2 ~500):1 which equates to a molar ratio of 1.27~317.41 which encompasses this range), and a final concentration of hypochlorite in the mixer is 0.02-5 mmol/L (Ma par. [0046] indicates 3.8mg/L of clorox which equates to 0.051 mmol/L hypochlorite); and
( e) turning on the mixer to carry out stirring reaction (Huang uses a motorized stirrer which would require being "turned on" to provide the mixing condition described in par. [0124]) primarily based on redox reaction mechanism in a heterogeneous micro-interface region that occurs through zero-valent iron and hypochlorite to generate highly active hydroxyl radicals to convert (Both Ma and Huang disclose the use of ZVI in solid form together with hypochlorite to oxidize contaminants through inherently heterogenous redox pathways that generate reactive oxygen species. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that hydroxyl radicals and other reactive species such as Fe(IV) and Cl∙ are inherently generated during ZVI/hypochlorite redox reactions, as part of well-known Fenton and Fenton-like reaction pathways) and degrade pollutants in the water which are resistant to interference and non-selective to attack organic matter, thereby removing a broad range of organic pollutants in the water (Ma abstract).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN-102897893-A), in view of Huang (WO-2011035263-A2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo (CN-104276646-A an English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 4, Ma in view of Huang discloses the method of claim 1.
Ma discloses in par. [0038] that the concentration of hypochlorite may be mixed in any proportion however it does not disclose wherein a concentration of the mother liquor of hypochlorite in step (b) is 0.1~2.5 mol/L.
Guo discloses a method of removing organic pollutants (Guo “organic contaminants” p. 3 par. 3) in water by zero-valent iron enhanced (Guo par. [0001]) hypochlorite (par. [0008]), comprising the steps of: (a) weighing zero-valent iron in solid form (Guo claim 8); (b) preparing a mother liquor of hypochlorite (Guo par. [0029]); (d) adding the zero-valent iron solid and the mother liquor of hypochlorite to the raw water containing organic pollutants in a mixer (Guo claim 8), and (e) turning on the mixer to carry out stirring reaction to remove the organic pollutants in the raw water (Guo claim 8), wherein a concentration of the mother liquor of hypochlorite in step (b) is 0.1~2.5 mol/L (Guo discloses that this concentration of the oxidant may be between 0.001mM to 10M which is 0.000001 to 10 mol/L).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and a simple matter of experimentation and optimization to combine the teaching of Guo with the method of Ma in view of Huang to adjust the concentration of the mother liquor of hypochlorite in step (b) is 0.1~2.5 mol/L. Ma recognizes that the concentration of hypochlorite may be in any proportion and Guo, being directed to using ZVI and an oxidant for “economically and effectively” removing pollutants from water to ensure safe drinking water supplies the concentration to do this. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the hypochlorite to the most effective concentration while not wasting resources.
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 WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779