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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-18 are examined based on their presentation in the Preliminary Amendment filed on 08/30/2023.
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.
Claims 9, 10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 9, recitation of “a submerged plant” and “the submerged plant” covered on the carrier and contained in the biochar-enhanced grass blanket are inconsistent with recitations of “submerged plant seed” in claim 1 from which claim depends, it being unclear whether such “plant” is associated with or is derived from the plant seed.
In claim 15, recitations of “the pyrolysis” lack antecedent basis, changing dependency of claim 15 to depend from claim 14 would resolve this 112 (b) issue.
In claim 17, “the submerged plant seed” is inconsistent with recitations of “submerged plant” in claim 9 from which claim depends, it being unclear whether such “plant seed is associated with or is derived from the plant.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) since they depend from claim 9 which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication CN 114680021A and the accompanying Machine translation (publication ‘021) in view of Patent Publication WO 2022199410 and the accompanying Machine translation (publication ’410) and Patent Publication CN 111892175 and the accompanying Machine translation (publication ‘175). The references to paragraphs and Embodiments in the details of the 103 rejection refer to the Machine translation.
For independent claim 1, publication ‘021 discloses a method for preparing a carbon-enhanced grass blanket for remediating contaminated sediment;
(paragraph beginning “2)” “submerged plant (grass, other submerged plant seedling or seed can be) planted on the composite planting carrier of the invention, the root system in the gap, and cloning and proliferation to form the final shape of the submerged grass blanket”,
“contents of the invention”, 1st paragraph regarding the submerged grass plants located in high load polluted water or sludge,
the paragraph beginning “the water quality transparency is” regarding the grass blanket having strong adsorption capacity and improving water quality in a short time,
and the paragraph beginning “The water quality COD is” and the 3 paragraphs following this paragraph concerning the submerged grass blanket having strong pollution substance reducing ability and reducing pollution load in a certain time, hence the grass blanket inherently being effective for remediating contaminated sediment of the bottom surfaces of bodies of water) , comprising:
immersing a porous carrier in a solution and a porous carbon-containing suspension sequentially to obtain a carrier loaded with carbon on a surface;
(paragraph beginning “2) submerged plant” regarding grass seedlings being planted on a composite, thus having layers with surfaces, planting carrier, applied by engineering, and the
paragraph beginning “preparation method” regarding the composite planting carrier body being dripped in a water solution, thus inherently forming a suspension, and the Embodiment 2 section concerning the composite carrier body being loaded with 11% of adsorbent which is carbon adsorbent);
culturing the carrier loaded with carbon adsorbent on a surface in a culture solution to obtain a surface-functionalized carrier;
(paragraph beginning “2) submerged plant” regarding grass seedlings being planted on a composite, thus having layers with surfaces, planting carrier, applied by engineering, hence inherently having surface functionalization and undergoing cultivation at any place, and
the paragraph beginning “3) the composite planting carrier” regarding the carrier passing through water pool cloth, i.e. an aqueous solution), and
Embodiment 3 regarding the composite planting carrier body being dipped in a water solution);
mixing a submerged plant seed with water, and adding the surface-functionalized carrier thereto to obtain a carrier deposited with the submerged plant seed
(Embodiment 3 regarding the composite planting carrier body being dipped in a water solution, while spreading seed on the carrier body and carrying out spread cultivation); and
subjecting the carrier deposited with the submerged plant seed to germination in a nutrient solution to obtain the carbon-enhanced grass blanket for remediating contaminated sediment
(see again (Embodiment 3 regarding the composite planting carrier body being dipped in a water solution, while spreading seed on the carrier body and carrying out spread cultivation, and
also see Embodiment 4 regarding the solution containing slow release agent citric acid, a known plant nutrient and also containing 12% carbon adsorbent) .
Claim 1, and dependent claims, differ from publication ‘021 by requiring the grass blanket being specifically biochar-enhanced rather than simply carbon-enhanced, forming a biochar suspension and thus characterized in the carrier being loaded with biochar adsorbent on a surface to obtain a biochar-enhanced grass blanket.
Publication ‘410 teaches development of biochar-type adsorbent for adsorbing heavy metals in polluted water (Abstract regarding the biochar characteristics and use and Summary of the Invention, 1st and 2nd paragraphs regarding the biochar being co-pyrolyzed with aquatic plant and clay minerals to produce the biochar adsorbent).
Publication ‘410 teaches development of biochar-type adsorbent for adsorbing heavy metals in polluted water (Abstract regarding the biochar characteristics and use and Summary of the Invention, 1st and 2nd paragraphs regarding the biochar being co-pyrolyzed with aquatic plant and clay minerals to produce the biochar adsorbent).
It would have been accordingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of biological remediation of sediment and sludge to have modified the method of ‘021, by selecting biochar as the particular type of carbon utilized, for producing the grass blanket, and for loading the carrier, as taught or suggested by ‘410, in order to more effectively absorb heavy metals in polluted water.
The claims also differ from publication ‘021 by requiring immersing the porous carrier in a starch adhesive, and for the culture solution being inoculated with an activated sludge.
Publication ‘175 teaches a preparation method for producing porous carbon carrier material having a strengthened adsorption capacity, particularly for adsorbing nitrogen and phosphorous pollutant (Abstract). Publication ‘175 teaches such method including carrier material being mixed with starch adhesive, being carbonized and the porous carbon-containing carrier material being immersed in an active (“activated”) sludge, thus providing a microorganism-containing biological active sites on the carrier surface (Abstract and Contents of the Invention 1st paragraph).
Such Abstract continues by teaching such combination of carbon adsorption material and biological coating having a synergistic effect for removing of nitrogen and phosphorus from water (also see section S3, 1st through 8th paragraph concerning inoculation of active sludge rich in phosphorus and nitrogen-adsorbing bacteria).
Returning to publication ‘021, removal of phosphorus and nitrogen pollutants, and reduction of amounts of these pollutants in the water is a main objective of ‘021 (see Details of Embodiments 1 and 2 of ‘021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of biological remediation of sediment and sludge to have modified the method of ‘021, by immersing the porous carrier in a starch adhesive, and for the culture solution to be inoculated with an activated sludge, as taught or suggested by ‘175, in order to provide microorganism-containing biological active sites on the carrier surface, and more optimally and effectively adsorb phosphorus and nitrogen pollutants from the water and sediment.
For claim 2, publication ‘175 further teaches or suggests wherein the porous carrier is immersed in the starch adhesive solution for at least 10 min to 20 min (Contents of the invention, 3rd through 5th paragraphs regarding processing time employing a solution and washing liquid of 30-60 minutes, and surface function modification for about 1-3 hours); and
wherein the porous carrier is immersed in a porous suspension for 30 min to 60 min (Contents of the invention, 3rd and 4th paragraphs regarding processing time employing a solution and washing liquid of 30-60 minutes).
It would have been further obvious to have conducted the process steps of publication ‘021, as taught or suggested by publication ‘175, for such respective time durations, in order to optimize immersion times to enable adequate mixing and adherence of components to each other to form a stable suspension.
In addition, the claimed X parameter(s) is/are deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of fluid in the electrochemical cell, at a flow velocity that is effective to allow adequate residence time in the cell to remove impurities or unwanted substances from the fluid.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
For claim 3, publication ‘175 further teaches or suggests wherein the starch adhesive solution comprises a starch adhesive and water, and a dose ratio of the starch adhesive to water is in a range of about 80-150 grams per 1 L (Embodiment 1 regarding mixing of 300 g of starch adhesive to form a premix with 110 g of diluent solvent water added to an aqueous solution of FeCl3 and LaCl3 water containing large amounts of molar water content).
In addition, the claimed parameter of amounts of mixing ratio of starch adhesive to diluent solvent water and ratio of these amounts are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize adhesion between the carrier or grass blanket layers, and thus facilitate handling of the grass blanket during cultivation, as well as enable adequate mixing and dispersion of the starch adhesive throughout the porous carrier.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been also obvious to have modified the process steps of publication ‘021, by forming an adhesive solution comprising starch adhesive and diluent water, as taught or suggested by publication ‘175, for inherent reasons of optimizing adhesion between the carrier or grass blanket layers, and thus facilitate handling of the grass blanket during cultivation.
It would have been also further obvious to have conducted the process steps for such respective time durations, in order to optimize amounts of diluent water to mix with the starch adhesive, to enable adequate mixing and dispersion of the starch adhesive throughout the porous carrier.
For claim 4, publication ‘410 further teaches wherein the porous biochar suspension is prepared by a process comprising the following steps:
subjecting a biomass to pyrolysis to obtain the biochar ; and
mixing the biochar with water to obtain the porous biochar suspension (see in the paragraphs beginning “According to the present invention, in order to further improve the stability of biochar”…wet blended and then pyrolyzed…. and then Add biomass to the suspension, continue stirring for 3 to 10 hours, and keep the temperature at 50 to 100 °C for 3 to 12 hours to remove part of the water, which is conducive to the formation of a porous structure on the surface of the biochar in the subsequent pyrolysis reaction process, increasing the biological carbon stability.”.
Thus, it would have been additionally obvious to have also modified the method of ‘021 by producing the porous biochar suspension is prepared by a process comprising the following steps:
subjecting a biomass to pyrolysis to obtain the biochar ; and
mixing the biochar with water to obtain the porous biochar suspension, as taught by ‘410, to further improve the biological carbon stability of the biomass of the grass blanket.
It would have been further obvious to have modified the method or grass blanket of ‘021 by utilizing such steps of utilizing pyrolysis and mixing of the biochar with water to create a suspension, as taught by ‘410, in order to form a porous structure on the surface of the biochar in the subsequent pyrolysis reaction process, increasing the biological carbon stability of the blanket, thus facilitating effectiveness of the blanket for reducing biodegradable pollutants.
For claim 5, publication ‘410 further teaches or suggests wherein the pyrolysis is conducted at a temperature of 500° C. to 700° C. for 2 h to 3 h, and raising to the temperature for the pyrolysis is conducted at a heating rate of 10° C./min to 20° C./min (see in Example 1 and the text immediately preceding: “Wherein, the pyrolysis includes two stages of low temperature pyrolysis and high temperature pyrolysis:
Low temperature pyrolysis stage: the pyrolysis temperature is 200～400℃, and the pyrolysis time is 1.0～4.0h;
High temperature pyrolysis stage: the pyrolysis temperature is 480～750℃, and the pyrolysis time is 0.5～3.0h.
In the present invention, the pyrolysis process is divided into two stages, clay minerals can significantly improve the chemical stability of the biochar, and are also conducive to the coating or enrichment of heavy metal elements. In the low-temperature pyrolysis stage, with the increase of temperature, the content of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur gradually increased, and the yield of biochar gradually increased. In the high-temperature pyrolysis stage, with the increase of pyrolysis temperature, the yield of biochar gradually decreased, the ash content increased, and the pH of biochar also increased significantly.”
; and
a dose ratio of the biochar to water is in a range of 10-50 grams per 1 L (approximate claimed range of biochar precursor materials to water suggested in Example 1, paragraph (2), as accounting for 46% of the water).
In addition, the claimed parameters of particular pyrolysis temperatures, rates of raising of pyrolysis temperature and relative amounts or mixing ratio of biochar material to water are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize the porosity and stability of the biochar, as well as enable adequate mixing and dispersion of the biochar precursor materials throughout the porous carrier.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been further obvious to have modified the method or grass blanket of ‘021, by utilizing such pyrolysis temperatures, heating rates, and mixing ratio of biochar material to water, as taught by ‘410, in order to significantly improve the chemical stability of the biochar, as well as optimize the porosity and stability of the biochar, as well as enable adequate mixing and dispersion of the biochar precursor materials throughout the porous carrier.
For claim 9, publication ‘021 further discloses: production of a carbon-enhanced grass blanket for remediating contaminated sediment substantially prepared by the method of claim 1, comprising a carrier and a submerged plant covered on the carrier
(paragraph beginning “2)” “submerged plant (grass, other submerged plant seedling or seed can be) planted on the composite planting carrier of the invention, the root system in the gap, and cloning and proliferation to form the final shape of the submerged grass blanket”,
“contents of the invention”, 1st paragraph regarding the submerged grass plants located in high load polluted water or sludge,
the paragraph beginning “the water quality transparency is” regarding the grass blanket having strong adsorption capacity and improving water quality in a short time,
and
the paragraph beginning “The water quality COD is” and the 3 paragraphs following this paragraph concerning the submerged grass blanket having strong pollution substance reducing ability and reducing pollution load in a certain time, hence the grass blanket inherently being effective for remediating contaminated sediment of the bottom surfaces of bodies of water,
also see (paragraph beginning “2) submerged plant” regarding grass seedlings being planted on a composite, thus having layers with surfaces, planting carrier, applied by engineering, and
the paragraph beginning “preparation method” regarding the composite planting carrier body being dripped in a water solution, thus inherently forming a suspension, and the Embodiment 2 section concerning the composite carrier body being loaded with 11% of adsorbent which is carbon adsorbent);
wherein the carrier comprises a porous carrier (also see “Contents of the invention” regarding the carrier containing a foaming agent, hence increasing the porosity of the carrier)
and a carbon layer (section b2), 2nd paragraph regarding the adsorbent being a carbon adsorbent).
Claim 9 , and claims dependent from claim 9, differ from publication ‘021 by requiring the carrier containing an adhesive layer as well as a functional microorganism layer, with porous carrier layer, adhesive layer, carbon layer and microorganism layer being sequentially located on a surface of a pore structure of the porous carrier.
Publication ‘175 teaches a preparation method for producing porous carbon carrier material having a strengthened adsorption capacity, particularly for adsorbing nitrogen and phosphorous pollutant (Abstract). Publication ‘175 teaches such method including carrier material being mixed with starch adhesive, being carbonized and the porous carbon-containing carrier material being immersed in an active (“activated”) sludge, thus providing a microorganism-containing biological active sites on the carrier surface (Abstract and Contents of the Invention 1st paragraph).
Such Abstract continues by teaching such combination of carbon adsorption material and biological coating having a synergistic effect for removing of nitrogen and phosphorus from water (also see section S3, 1st through 8th paragraph concerning inoculation of active sludge rich in phosphorus and nitrogen-adsorbing bacteria).
Returning to publication ‘021, removal of phosphorus and nitrogen pollutants, and reduction of amounts of these pollutants in the water is a main objective of ‘021 (see Details of Embodiments 1 and 2 of ‘021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of biological remediation of sediment and sludge to have modified the method of ‘021, by immersing the porous carrier in a starch adhesive, and for the culture solution to be inoculated with an activated sludge, as taught or suggested by ‘175, in order to provide microorganism-containing biological active sites on the carrier surface, and more optimally and effectively adsorb phosphorus and nitrogen pollutants from the water and sediment.
It would have also been obvious to have included such sequential location of layers, in order to provide a combination of carbon adsorption material and biological coating having a synergistic effect for removing of nitrogen and phosphorus from water.
Claim 9, and claims dependent from claim 9, also again differ from publication ‘021 by requiring the carbon layer being specifically a biochar layer rather than simply carbon-enhanced, and forming a biochar-enhanced grass blanket.
Publication ‘410 teaches development of biochar-type adsorbent for adsorbing heavy metals in polluted water (Abstract regarding the biochar characteristics and use and Summary of the Invention, 1st and 2nd paragraphs regarding the biochar being co-pyrolyzed with aquatic plant and clay minerals to produce the biochar adsorbent).
It would have been accordingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of biological remediation of sediment and sludge to have modified the method of ‘021, by selecting biochar as the particular type of carbon utilized, for producing the grass blanket, and for loading the carrier, as taught or suggested by ‘410, in order to more effectively absorb heavy metals in polluted water.
Publication ‘021 also discloses the submerged plant contained in the carbon-enhanced grass blanket for remediating contaminated sediment having a set coverage density and length of a coverage density of about 600 plants/m.sup.2 to 900 plants/m.sup.2, however being silent as to particular length of the grass blanket or the grass blanket having a length of 30 cm to 60 cm.
((Publication section describing “As described above”, ) the composite planting carrier of the invention has high gap and high density, it can be randomly cut into various shapes by scissors can be jointed with the river form, and Section beginning “The specification of the composite planting carrier is 10 holes” the submerged grass blanket comprises the composite planting carrier body and submerged plant, the submerged plant is (seedling), planting it on the composite planting carrier body, carrying out spread cultivation; so as to reach 1000 plants per m2 of the finished product standard.”).
Claim 9 and claim 10 dependent therefrom, differ by specifying the length of the grass blanket. However, ‘021 suggests to utilize smaller sections of blanket sections on the order of square centimeters by emphasizing the grass blankets being formed by “spread cultivation” (Embodiment 4, paragraphs concerning “the submerged grass blanket comprises the composite planting carrier body and submerged plant, the submerged plant is the eye seed (seed), spreading the seed on the composite planting carrier body, carrying out spread cultivation; so as to reach 1000 plants per m2 of the finished product standard.”,
and also in the paragraph beginning “1) the composite planting gap” by the statement of “the composite planting carrier of the invention has high gap and high density, it can be randomly cut into various shapes by scissors can be jointed with the river form”) .
It would have been further obvious to have conducted the process steps for such respective time durations, in order to optimize immersion times to enable adequate mixing and adherence of components to each other to form a stable suspension.
In addition, the claimed X parameter(s) is/are deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of fluid in the electrochemical cell, at a flow velocity that is effective to allow adequate residence time in the cell to remove impurities or unwanted substances from the fluid.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
For claim 10, dependent on claim 9, publication ‘021 further discloses a method for remediating contaminated sediment using the carbon-enhanced grass blanket for remediating the contaminated sediment of claim 9, comprising:
covering a surface of contaminated sediment to be remediated with the carbon-enhanced grass blanket for remediating contaminated sediment; and performing remediation (paragraph beginning “2)” “submerged plant (grass, other submerged plant seedling or seed can be) planted on the composite planting carrier of the invention, the root system in the gap, and cloning and proliferation to form the final shape of the submerged grass blanket”,
“contents of the invention”, 1st paragraph regarding the submerged grass plants located in high load polluted water or sludge,
the paragraph beginning “the water quality transparency is” regarding the grass blanket having strong adsorption capacity and improving water quality in a short time,
and the paragraph beginning “The water quality COD is” and the 3 paragraphs following this paragraph concerning the submerged grass blanket having strong pollution substance reducing ability and reducing pollution load in a certain time, hence the grass blanket inherently being effective for remediating contaminated sediment of the bottom surfaces of bodies of water).
Claim 10 again differs from publication ‘021 by requiring the carbon-enhanced grass blanket being specifically a biochar-enhanced grass blanket.
Publication ‘410 teaches development of biochar-type adsorbent for adsorbing heavy metals in polluted water (Abstract regarding the biochar characteristics and use and Summary of the Invention, 1st and 2nd paragraphs regarding the biochar being co-pyrolyzed with aquatic plant and clay minerals to produce the biochar adsorbent).
It would have been accordingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of biological remediation of sediment and sludge to have modified the method of ‘021, by selecting biochar as the particular type of carbon utilized, for producing the grass blanket, and for loading the carrier, as taught or suggested by ‘410, in order to more effectively absorb heavy metals in polluted water.
For claim 11, publication ‘175 further teaches or suggests wherein the starch adhesive solution comprises a starch adhesive and water, and a dose ratio of the starch adhesive to water is in a range of about 80-150 grams per 1 L (Embodiment 1 regarding mixing of 300 g of starch adhesive to form a premix with 110 g of diluent solvent water added to an aqueous solution of FeCl3 and LaCl3 water containing large amounts of molar water content).
In addition, the claimed parameter of amounts of mixing ratio of starch adhesive to diluent solvent water and ratio of these amounts are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize adhesion between the carrier or grass blanket layers, and thus facilitate handling of the grass blanket during cultivation, as well as enable adequate mixing and dispersion of the starch adhesive throughout the porous carrier.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been also obvious to have modified the process steps of publication ‘021, by forming an adhesive solution comprising starch adhesive and diluent water, as taught or suggested by publication ‘175, for inherent reasons of optimizing adhesion between the carrier or grass blanket layers, and thus facilitate handling of the grass blanket during cultivation.
It would have been also further obvious to have conducted the process steps for such respective time durations, in order to optimize amounts of diluent water to mix with the starch adhesive, to enable adequate mixing and dispersion of the starch adhesive throughout the porous carrier.
For claim 12, publication ‘175 further teaches or suggests wherein the porous carrier is immersed in the starch adhesive solution for at least 10 min to 20 min (Contents of the invention, 3rd through 5th paragraphs regarding processing time employing a solution and washing liquid of 30-60 minutes, and surface function modification for about 1-3 hours); and
wherein the porous carrier is immersed in a porous suspension for 30 min to 60 min (Contents of the invention, 3rd and 4th paragraphs regarding processing time employing a solution and washing liquid of 30-60 minutes).
It would have been further obvious to have conducted the process steps of publication ‘021, as taught or suggested by publication ‘175, for such respective time durations, in order to optimize immersion times to enable adequate mixing and adherence of components to each other to form a stable suspension.
In addition, the claimed X parameter(s) is/are deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of fluid in the electrochemical cell, at a flow velocity that is effective to allow adequate residence time in the cell to remove impurities or unwanted substances from the fluid.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
For claim 13, dependent on claim 9, publication ‘175 further teaches or suggests wherein the starch adhesive solution comprises a starch adhesive and water, and a dose ratio of the starch adhesive to water is in a range of about 80-150 grams per 1 L (Embodiment 1 regarding mixing of 300 g of starch adhesive to form a premix with 110 g of diluent solvent water added to an aqueous solution of FeCl3 and LaCl3 water containing large amounts of molar water content).
In addition, the claimed parameter of amounts of mixing ratio of starch adhesive to diluent solvent water and ratio of these amounts are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize adhesion between the carrier or grass blanket layers, and thus facilitate handling of the grass blanket during cultivation, as well as enable adequate mixing and dispersion of the starch adhesive throughout the porous carrier.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been also obvious to have modified the process steps of publication ‘021, by forming an adhesive solution comprising starch adhesive and diluent water, as taught or suggested by publication ‘175, for inherent reasons of optimizing adhesion between the carrier or grass blanket layers, and thus facilitate handling of the grass blanket during cultivation.
It would have been also further obvious to have conducted the process steps for such respective time durations, in order to optimize amounts of diluent water to mix with the starch adhesive, to enable adequate mixing and dispersion of the starch adhesive throughout the porous carrier.
For claim 14, publication ‘410 further teaches wherein the porous biochar suspension is prepared by a process comprising the following steps:
subjecting a biomass to pyrolysis to obtain the biochar ; and
mixing the biochar with water to obtain the porous biochar suspension (see in the paragraphs beginning “According to the present invention, in order to further improve the stability of biochar”…wet blended and then pyrolyzed…. and then Add biomass to the suspension, continue stirring for 3 to 10 hours, and keep the temperature at 50 to 100 °C for 3 to 12 hours to remove part of the water, which is conducive to the formation of a porous structure on the surface of the biochar in the subsequent pyrolysis reaction process, increasing the biological carbon stability.”.
Thus, it would have been additionally obvious to have also modified the method of ‘021 by producing the porous biochar suspension is prepared by a process comprising the following steps:
subjecting a biomass to pyrolysis to obtain the biochar ; and
mixing the biochar with water to obtain the porous biochar suspension, as taught by ‘410, to further improve the biological carbon stability of the biomass of the grass blanket.
It would have been further obvious to have modified the method or grass blanket of ‘021 by utilizing such steps of utilizing pyrolysis and mixing of the biochar with water to create a suspension, as taught by ‘410, in order to form a porous structure on the surface of the biochar in the subsequent pyrolysis reaction process, increasing the biological carbon stability of the blanket, thus facilitating effectiveness of the blanket for reducing biodegradable pollutants.
For claim 15, publication ‘410 further teaches or suggests wherein the pyrolysis is conducted at a temperature of 500° C. to 700° C. for 2 h to 3 h, and raising to the temperature for the pyrolysis is conducted at a heating rate of 10° C./min to 20° C./min (see in Example 1 and the text immediately preceding: “Wherein, the pyrolysis includes two stages of low temperature pyrolysis and high temperature pyrolysis:
Low temperature pyrolysis stage: the pyrolysis temperature is 200～400℃, and the pyrolysis time is 1.0～4.0h;
High temperature pyrolysis stage: the pyrolysis temperature is 480～750℃, and the pyrolysis time is 0.5～3.0h.
In the present invention, the pyrolysis process is divided into two stages, clay minerals can significantly improve the chemical stability of the biochar, and are also conducive to the coating or enrichment of heavy metal elements. In the low-temperature pyrolysis stage, with the increase of temperature, the content of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur gradually increased, and the yield of biochar gradually increased. In the high-temperature pyrolysis stage, with the increase of pyrolysis temperature, the yield of biochar gradually decreased, the ash content increased, and the pH of biochar also increased significantly.”
; and
a dose ratio of the biochar to water is in a range of 10-50 grams per 1 L (approximate claimed range of biochar precursor materials to water suggested in Example 1, paragraph (2), as accounting for 46% of the water).
In addition, the claimed parameters of particular pyrolysis temperatures, rates of raising of pyrolysis temperature and relative amounts or mixing ratio of biochar material to water are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize the porosity and stability of the biochar, as well as enable adequate mixing and dispersion of the biochar precursor materials throughout the porous carrier.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been further obvious to have modified the method or grass blanket of ‘021, by utilizing such pyrolysis temperatures, heating rates, and mixing ratio of biochar material to water, as taught by ‘410, in order to significantly improve the chemical stability of the biochar, as well as optimize the porosity and stability of the biochar, as well as enable adequate mixing and dispersion of the biochar precursor materials throughout the porous carrier.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication CN 114680021A and the accompanying Machine translation (publication ‘021) in view of Patent Publication WO 2022199410 and the accompanying Machine translation (‘410) and Patent Publication CN 111892175 and the accompanying Machine translation (publication ‘175), as applied to claims 1-5 and 9-15 above, and further in view of Patent Publication CN 116253436 (publication ‘436) and the accompanying Machine translation (publication ‘436) in combination with Patent Publication CN 111333196 (publication ‘196) and the accompanying Machine translation (publication ‘196).
Publication ‘021 further discloses or suggests wherein the culturing is conducted at a temperature of 25° C. to 35° C. for 2 days to 3 days (paragraphs in the section describing “the following technical features and in Embodiments 1-3, paragraph beginning “preparation method”, concerning shaping and drying temperatures of about 15 to 35 degrees C, and paragraphs in Embodiments 2-3 concerning the grass blanket reducing nitrogen pollution load and total phosphorus within 7 days, thus suggesting a shorter culturing time of 2-3 days.
In addition, the claimed parameters of processing times and temperatures of culturing of the grass blanket are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize the nitrogen and phosphorus-reducing properties of the grass blanket and components thereof.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been further obvious to have modified the method or grass blanket of ‘021, by utilizing the instantly claimed culturing times and temperatures, so as to optimize the nitrogen and phosphorus-reducing properties of the grass blanket and components thereof.
Claims 6 and 16 further differ by requiring wherein the culture solution comprises the following components by concentration: 800 mg/L to 1,000 mg/L of sodium acetate, 200 mg/L to 400 mg/L of ammonium sulfate, and 40 mg/L to 50 mg/L of sodium dihydrogen phosphate.
Publication ‘196 teaches river, lake and reservoir purification by an ecological floating island comprising aquatic plant and microorganisms for synergistic biodegradation and removal efficiency of water pollutant (Abstract), with the above culture solution having a mixture of sodium acetate, ammonium sulfate and sodium dihydrogen phosphate (see the paragraph beginning “Furthermore, the inorganic nutrient … mixture of…more than two of… sodium acetate…ammonium sulfate…sodium dihydrogen phosphate”) and suggests these nutrients being on the order of the claimed concentration ranges in the section concerning “manufacturing example 2”, 1st through 3rd steps regarding mixing parts and
in the description of “Table 1” regarding putting in 400L water, and adding the above mixture of sodium acetate, ammonium sulfate and sodium dihydrogen phosphate to result in a COD of 50-80 ppm (“in five 500L square barrel, putting into 400L water, adding ammonium chloride, sodium acetate, and potassium dihydrogen phosphate, adjusting COD is 50-80ppm, ammonia nitrogen is 5-10ppm, phosphate is 1-2ppm”, so as to improve the mechanical strength of the pore structure).
In addition, the claimed parameters of relative amounts of culture solution components are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize completion of culturing of the grass blanket and its mechanical strength of the pore structure of the grass blanket, to facilitate it’s construction, transportability and durability.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been further obvious to have modified the method of ‘021 so as to have ammonium chloride, sodium acetate, and potassium dihydrogen phosphate on the order of the claimed ranges, as taught by ‘196, in order to improve the mechanical strength of the pore structure of the grass blanket, to facilitate it’s construction, transportability and durability.
Claims 6 and 16 also differ by requiring that the activated sludge is derived from a secondary sedimentation tank of a sewage treatment plant, and has an inoculum amount of 10 mL/L to 30 mL/L.
Publication ‘436 discloses an ecological floating island comprising aquatic plant and microorganisms for synergistic biodegradation and removal efficiency of water pollutant (Abstract), in which the activated sludge which is employed is derived from a secondary sedimentation tank of a sewage treatment plant (see Paragraphs referring to figure 1, regarding providing of active sludge from a water storage tank in which sedimentation is performed), thus inherently resulting in conservation of material by reducing the need to dispose of such sludge from the treatment plant.
Publication ‘196 further suggests such inoculum amount of added activated sludge being of the order of 10 mL/L to 30 mL/L in the teaching of adding 5-20 g/L of dry heavy sludge to porous carbon carrier material of a water treatment carrier from a municipal sewage plant (see paragraphs 1-2 in the S3 section, concerning preparation of porous carbon microbial film carrier material). In such section, Publication ‘118 teaches such sludge material as enriching phosphorus bacteria in the carrier material, i.e. further reducing phosphorous pollutants.
In addition, the claimed parameter of relative amount of adding of activated sludge is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize phosphorus-reducing properties of the carrier material of the grass blanket.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been further obvious to have modified the method of ‘021 by utilizing the activated sludge from a secondary sedimentation tank of a sewage treatment plant, as cumulatively taught by publication ‘436 and publication ‘196, in order to enrich phosphorus bacteria in the carrier material, i.e. further reducing phosphorous pollutants, while conserving material by reducing the need to dispose of such sludge from the treatment plant.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication CN 114680021A and the accompanying Machine translation (publication ‘021) in view of Patent Publication WO 2022199410 and the accompanying Machine translation (‘410) and Patent Publication CN 111892175 and the accompanying Machine translation (publication ‘175), as applied to claims 1-5 and 9-15 above, and further in view of Patent Publication CN 110745964 (publication ‘964) and the accompanying Machine translation (publication ‘964).
Claims 7 and 17 further differ by requiring wherein the submerged plant seed comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of Vallisneria natans, Hydrilla verticillata, Myriophyllum verticillatum, and Potamogeton crispus; and
For claims 7 and 17, Publication ‘021 is silent as to dose ratio of the submerged plant seed to water being any particular value or specifically in a range of about (0.5-1.0) kg:1 L , however suggests that such dose ration be in such relatively high range of values in the following text: The fourth aspect of the invention provides a submerged grass blanket, comprising the composite planting carrier body and submerged plant. the submerged plant can be grass…seedling or seed …1) the composite planting carrier of the invention has high gap and high density
Publication ‘964 teaches a device for purifying river and lake water quality using submerged plants (Abstract), with the submerged plant being selected from a group consisting of grass, potamogeton crispus and other vegetation (see in the 4th paragraph following “the technical solution…as follows”, the text “Further, the submerged plant is selected from the group consisting of grass, pondweed, pink and green fox tail algae or potamogeton crispus.”). Such selection is inherently a factor of climatology and environmental factors, as ‘964 teaches in the Background, 1st paragraph that such aquatic plant purification can be utilized in “most of our country”, i.e. over diverse regions.
In addition, the claimed parameter of dose ratio of submerged plant seed to water is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation, inherently in order to effectiveness and dispersion properties of the grass blanket.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been further obvious to have modified the ‘021 method, by selecting potamogeton crispus as the particular selected grass plant, as suggested by ‘964, so as to tailor the grass blanket to a region having a particular climatological and environmental condition, and to optimize effectiveness and dispersion properties of the grass blanket.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of wherein the nutrient solution comprises the following components by concentration: 10 mg/L to 20 mg/L of urea, 40 mg/L to 80 mg/L of calcium nitrate, 40 mg/L to 80 mg/L of potassium nitrate, 5 mg/L to 8 mg/L of ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, 20 mg/L to 30 mg/L of magnesium sulfate, 2 mg/L to 5 mg/L of an ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) sodium salt, 0.02 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L of boric acid, 0.02 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L of manganese sulfate, 0.02 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L of zinc sulfate, 0.02 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L of copper sulfate, and 0.02 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L of ammonium molybdate; and
the germination is conducted at a temperature of 25° C. to 30° C. for 30 days to 50 days.
Such combination of nutrient solution ingredients for a biological water, sediment or sludge plant treatment mechanism is not taught or suggested by any combination of the applied or otherwise cited prior art.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 would also distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of wherein the nutrient solution comprises the following components by concentration: 10 mg/L to 20 mg/L of urea, 40 mg/L to 80 mg/L of calcium nitrate, 40 mg/L to 80 mg/L of potassium nitrate, 5 mg/L to 8 mg/L of ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, 20 mg/L to 30 mg/L of magnesium sulfate, 2 mg/L to 5 mg/L of an ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) sodium salt, 0.02 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L of boric acid, 0.02 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L of manganese sulfate, 0.02 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L of zinc sulfate, 0.02 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L of copper sulfate, and 0.02 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L of ammonium molybdate; and
the germination is conducted at a temperature of 25° C. to 30° C. for 30 days to 50 days.
Such combination of nutrient solution ingredients for any processing or culturing of a biological or plant-based water, sediment or sludge pollutant-removal material, is not taught or suggested by any combination of the applied or otherwise cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art is cited regarding utilization of plants and culturing of such plants in combination with pollutant adsorption and absorption materials for purifying bodies of water and associated sludge or sediment on the bottom of such bodies of water.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users.
Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
01/30/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773