DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 6 - 25 are pending in the instant application . Priority This application is a continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 16/840,165 filed April 3, 2020, now U.S. Patent No.11,673,114, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 62/829,550 filed on April 4, 2019 . I nformation Disclosure Statements Applicants’ Information Di sclosure Statement s , filed on 0 5 / 1 7 /20 2 4 , and 06/ 25 /202 4 ha ve been considered. Pl ease refer to Applicant’s cop ies of t he PTO-1449 submitted herewith. Status of the Claims Claims 6-25 are under examination on the merits. Specification The priority data in t he first paragrap h of the specification does not contain updated information. Specifically, the first paragraph of the specification should include that t his application is a continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 16/840,165 filed April 3, 2020, now U.S. Patent No.11,673,114 . An appropriate amendment is required . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 9 and 1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 9 contains a term “ approximately ”, which is not defined in the claim nor in present specification. By definition, the term is used to show that something is almost, but not completely, accurate or exact; roughly. Claim 9 is subject to subjective interpretation. Claim 10 contains a phrase “ a specific density of approximately 1.22 - 1.25 g/ml ” . However, the term s “ specific density” and “ approximately ” are not defined in either the claim nor the specification. It is not clear what is the difference between density and specific density , and how the density range should be interpreted by “ approximately ” in the claim over the cited prior art in the following art rejection . Therefore, claim 10 is subject to subjective interpretation. The term “ specific density” is interpreted as “ density” . Applicant is invited to make response over the rejected terms based on the original disclosure to make the prosecution record clear. 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S hen et al ., Water Science & Tech ., ( 2018 ) , 78(9) , p . 1980-1989 in view of Agyin-Birkorang et al ., Sci. of Total Environment , ( 2009 ) , v . 407 , p . 826-834 ; Lee et al ., Water , ( 2015) , v . 7 , p . 1480-1496 ; Lam et al. , Journal of Applied Polymer Science , ( 2017 ), 134(26), 1-8 ; and Elkhatib et al. , Current Nanoscience , ( 2015 ), 11(5), 655-668. Applicant’s claim 6 is drawn to a method of making filter media adapted to treat contaminated water, said method comprising the steps of: providing a plurality of particles of powdered aluminum-based water treatment residuals ; and entrapping each particle of at least some of said plurality of particles in a corresponding shell which includes calcium and potassium alginate . Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01) S hen et al . discloses calcium alginate beads containing drinking water treatment residu als (DWTR-CA), and a method of synthesis of DWTR-CA . The method compris es preparing sodium alginate aqueous solution, and mixing the sodium alginate aqueous solution with DWTR-CA under vigorous stirring for 1 h to obtain homogeneous suspensions. The resultant suspensions were then introduced dropwise to a calcium solution (0.5 mol/L CaCl 2 ) at a constant speed with a peristaltic pump to produce the DWTR-CA beads . The beads were allowed to stand in solution for another 24 hrs to reach the full gelation ( entrapping ). See “Synthesis and characterization of DWTR-CA beads”, right column, p.1981. The resulting DWTR-CA particles covered with a shell which includes calcium and sodium alginate . Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02 ) The difference between the instantly claimed method of claim 6 and the method of S hen et al . is that the prior art does not teach the particles in the corresponding shell includ ing potassium alginate. Instead, S hen et al . teach es the shell includes sodium alginate. Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413) However, t he instantly claimed method would have been obvious over the method disclosed in S hen et al . because the difference of the shell includ ing sodium alginate and potassium alginate are obvious variation. S odium alginate and potassium alginate are homologous chemical substances , and the properties of s odium alginate are very similar to those of potassium alginate because both potassium cation ( K + ) and sodi um cation (Na + ) are Group IA cation, and function as a counterion in an alginate salt. Also see Google AI search “Similarity of sodium alginate and potassium alginate” , completed 11/07/2025. I t would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the shell by replacing s odium alginate with potassium alginate used as a starting material for preparing calcium alginate . Therefore, S hen et al . would have rendered claim 6 obvious. In terms of claim s 7 -9, S hen et al . discloses calcium alginate beads of DWTR containing particles having varying sizes with a diameter of approximately 2-5 mm , wherein beads are in the form of granules (Table 1, p.1984; and Figure 1, p.1982) . In terms of claim 10 wherein said granules have a specific density of approximately 1.22 - 1.25 g/ml , S hen et al . teaches the density of the beads is around the range of 1.00-1.01 g/mL, assuming the term “specific density” has the same meaning of “density”. Since the term “ approximately ” is not defined in Applicant’s disclosure, the density of the beads within the range of 1.00-1.01 g/mL disclosed by S hen et al . would be considered to be obvious over the claimed a specific density of approximately 1.22-1.25 g/ml , unless Applicant can show and/or prove otherwise. In terms of claim 11, wherein said granules are non-toxic , it would have been an inherited property of the beads of S hen et al . because the aluminum -based DWTR encapsulated by alginate is used for pollution control (“Prospects”, left column at p.1987), and neither sodium DWTR nor calcium DWTR is toxic. In terms of claim 12, the beads of S hen et al . are water insoluble in order to adsorption of phosphorus (see Title at p.1980). In terms of claims 13-15, the limitations would be the inherited properties of the beads disclosed S hen et al . because the beads are calcium alginate beads containing drinking water treatment residuals (DWTR-CA), and used for adsorption of phosphorus for pollution control. In terms of claim 16 wherein said granules constitute a green sorbent product , S hen et al . teaches the beads of aluminum-based DWTR encapsulated by alginate is used for pollution control. The DWTR-CA beads constitute a green sorbent product . In terms of claim 17 wherein said plurality of particles have an oxalate- extractable aluminum concentration greater than 100 ppm , Agyin-Birkorang et al . teaches that the particles of DWTR-CA have an oxalate- extractable aluminum concentration greater than 100 ppm (see Table 1, p.829). In terms of claims 18-2 1 , the claims would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art over S hen et al . in view of Agyin-Birkorang et al . for the similar analysis above , wherein said aluminum-based water treatment residuals are the byproduct of drinking water treatment plants (claim 18) because S hen et al . discloses the beads are made from drinking water treatment residuals (DWTR-CA), and would be dry before instant application (claim 19), are the product of process involving grinding, sieving, and/or milling in order to have varying sizes with a diameter of approximately 2-5 mm (claim 20), and said plurality of particles are non-toxic (claim 21) because particles (beads) are used for pollution control (“Prospects”, left column at p.1987). See Table 1, p.1984; and Figure 1, p.1982. In terms of claim 22, Agyin-Birkorang et al . teaches that the particles of DWTR-CA have an oxalate- extractable aluminum concentration greater than 100 ppm (see Table 1, p.829). In terms of claim 23, S hen et al . discloses calcium alginate beads of DWTR containing particles having varying sizes with a diameter of approximately 2-5 mm , wherein beads are in the form of granules (Table 1, p.1984; and Figure 1, p.1982). In terms of claim 25, S hen et al . teaches the plurality of particles are used for adsorption of phosphorus for pollution control. (“Prospects”, left column at p.1987). S hen et al . because the beads are calcium alginate beads containing drinking water treatment residuals (DWTR-CA), and used for adsorption of phosphorus for pollution control. In terms of claim 24 wherein said plurality of particles are nano-sized , S hen et al . teach es the transformation of DWTR powder into beads can be done by microencapsulation, and the cited Lam et al. (left column, p.1981) teaches using microencapsulation preparing plurality of particles are nano-sized . In addition, Lee et al . teaches using aluminum-based water treatment residue to remove phosphorus, and phosphorus adsorption increases with the particle size of aluminum-based water treatment residue (DWTR) reduced (see Table 2, p.1482) ; and Elkhatib et al. teaches using water treatment residual nanoparticles (e.g., less than 100 nm) as a novel sorbent for enhanced phosphorus removal from aqueous medium (Abstract at p.655 , and “2.4. Batch Sorption Isotherms”, left column p.656 ). Therefore, S hen et al . in view of Lam et al. , Lee et al . and Elkhatib et al. would have rendered claim 24 obvious. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 6-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,673,114 (“the `114 patent”) in view of S hen et al . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Applicant’s claims 6-24 are related to a method of making a filter media adapted to treat contaminated water, said method comprising the steps of: providing a plurality of particles of powdered aluminum-based water treatment residuals; and entrapping each particle of at least some of said plurality of particles in a corresponding shell which includes calcium and potassium alginate according to independent claim 6, while claims 1- 19 of the ` 114 patent are related to a filter media adapted to treat contaminated water comprising a plurality of particles of powdered aluminum-based water treatment residuals, each particle of at least some of said plurality of particles being entrapped in a corresponding shell which includes calcium and potassium alginate according to independent claim 1. Applicant’s claims 6-24 drawn to the methods for preparing the same filter media adapted claimed in claims 1-19 of the `114 patent through entrapping , which is also cited in the claimed product of claims 1-19 of the `114 patent. Therefore, claims 1-19 of the `114 patent would have rendered present claims 6-24 obvious, respectively. In In terms of claim 25, wherein said filter media functions as an adsorbent for contaminants and nutrients in storm water , S hen et al . further teaches the plurality of particles are used for adsorption of phosphorus for pollution control pollution , and phosphorus is included in contaminants and nutrients in storm water (“Prospects”, left column at p.1987). Therefore, the claims of the `114 patent in view of S hen et al . would have rendered present claim 25 obvious. Conclusions Claims 6-25 are rejected. Specification is objected to. Telephone Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s s upervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. /YONG L CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731