I 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “introducing the adsorbent and water mixture into a single sorption reactor for treatment” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the single sorption reactor is same or different from the pressurized sorption reactor cited in line 3.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “permitting the mixture to remain in the pressurized sorption reactor for a maximum 30 to 60 minute retention time for the adsorbents to adsorb contaminants in the water” in line 13-14 on page 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether 30 minutes is intended to be minimum.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sorbent reactor" in line 1 on page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a recycle pump” in line 1 on page 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the recycle pump of line 17 on page 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the slurry line" in line 1 on page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the contact time" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirbazari et al (US 5505841), in view of Muramoto et al. (US 2007/0119779), and CN 201999762 (hereinafter referred as '762, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claims 1-3, Pirbazari teaches method for removing contaminants from water comprising the steps of:
providing a pressurized sorption reactor (230) which is in fluid communication with an influent line accepting an influent flow of water to be treated and a feed line in fluid communication with the influent line (refer influent line connecting influent water reservoir 210 to 230);
adding adsorbent to an influent flow of water to be treated in the influent line (refer carbon slurry from tank 220 added to influent line);
combining the adsorbent with the water to be treated (refer carbon slurry from tank 220 added to influent line);
introducing the adsorbent and water mixture into the pressurized sorption reactor for treatment (refer line 218 introducing the mixture to the reactor 230);
the slurry effluent line (240) in communication with a discharge of the sorption reactor and a recycle pump (244) in the slurry effluent line (refer fig. 4);
transferring the mixture from the sorbent reactor using the recycle pump to a ceramic membrane filter unit operating in cross-flow filtration (refer C13/L29-37) wherein the treated water is discharged as permeate (280) and the adsorbent is returned to the sorption reactor as retentate (refer conduit 276);
a permeate line (280) in fluid communication with the ceramic membrane filter for removing the treated water as permeate;
a permeate tank (282);
a concentrate line (refer drain 290) for removing the absorbent mixture; and
adding new adsorbents to the influent flow of water to continue contaminant removal (influent is connected to the adsorbent reservoir 220 which supplies adsorbent to the influent).
Regarding the limitation “removing the adsorbent mixture and adsorbed contaminant concentrate from the ceramic membrane filter via the concentrate line upon the adsorbent mixture losing its capacity of adsorbing contaminants”, selecting when to remove adsorbent would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art since Pirbazari teaches removal of contents of the reactor through conduit 290.
Pirbazari teaches a retentate line (276) in fluid communication with the ceramic membrane filter and the sorption reactor to return the adsorbent mixture. Pirbazari teaches returning sorbent to the sorption reactor and does not disclose that the sorbent is returned to the influent line. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to return the sorbent from rententate line back to sorption reactor either through influent line or directly to the reactor because both serves the purpose of returning the sorbent to the sorption reactor.
Pirbazari does not teach that the adsorbent comprises multiple adsorbents, and periodically backwashing the ceramic membrane filter using a backwash line in fluid communication with a backwash pump, a backwash valve, a backwash tank, the permeate tank and the permeate line.
Muramoto teaches a system and method for treatment of water by adding adsorbent to water containing contaminants (refer abstract), and separating a permeated liquid through a filter membrane to concentrate the adsorbent (refer abstract). Muramoto teaches periodically backwashing the filter membranes to remove clogging (refer [0139]). Muramoto also teaches that the adsorbent is one inorganic adsorbent, or two or more inorganic adsorbents, selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide, zeolite, acid clay, activated clay, diatomite, metal oxide, metal powder, activated carbon and carbon black (refer [0043], also refer [0122] disclosing “adsorbent for use in the method of this invention includes an inorganic porous material and an organic porous material. Specifically, the adsorbent includes inorganic porous materials such as zeolite, diatomite, acid clay, activated clay and carbon black, metal oxides such as titanium dioxide, inorganic adsorbents such as a metal powder, activated carbon organic porous materials such as and an ion-exchange resin. These may be used singly or in combination of at least two materials of these”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Pirbazari to provide a backwashing line to backwash the filtration membrane to remove clogging as taught by Muramoto. Providing pump and associated conduits to enable providing backwashing liquid would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. With regards to the adsorbent being multiple adsorbents, selecting whether to use one adsorbent or a combination of adsorbent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Muramoto establishes that it is known in the art to use a combination of adsorbents in treatment of water, wherein the combination of adsorbents include activated carbon, ion exchange resin, and adsorbent clay. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious); and In re Couvaras, 70 F.4th 1374, 1378-79, 2023 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (That the two claimed types of active agents, GABA-a agonists and ARBs, were known to be useful for the same purpose—alleviating hypertension—alone can serve as a motivation to combine). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding “permitting the mixture to remain in the pressurized sorption reactor for a maximum 30 to 60 minute retention time for the adsorbents to adsorb contaminants in the water”, Muramoto teaches providing residence time of 1 hour (refer [0230]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Muramuto also teaches a retentate return line and concentrate line (refer fig. 6-8). Selecting when or what portion of adsorbent to be discarded would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. It should be noted that the claimed limitation “upon the adsorbent mixture losing its capacity of adsorbing contaminants” is inherent because adsorbent that has been in contact with contaminants loses at least a portion of its adsorbing capacity.
Pirbazari does not teach that the pressurized sorption reactor having at least one horizontal baffle between the feed line and a slurry effluent line to prevent flow short circuiting.
'762 teaches an activated carbon adsorption equipment for adsorbing and removing contaminants in water [0002], the adsorption device comprises a tank having compartment dividers that divide the tank body into multiple compartments, the dividers are arranged horizontally in the tank [0028]. '762 discloses that the design ensures that utilization of rate of activated carbon is greatly improved [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sorption reactor of modified Pirbazari with teachings of '762 to provide horizontal dividers to improve utilization of activated carbon. The limitation "to prevent short circuiting" do not structurally differentiate '762 from the claimed invention because '762 discloses vertical flow and short circuiting of flow is inherent due to the presence of horizontal dividers/baffles.
Regarding claim 4, modified Pirbazari teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Pirbazari further teaches that the adsorbent has particle size smaller than 45 microns (refer C13/L20-25). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, modified Pirbazari teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Muramoto further teaches adding a flocculating agent to water containing the adsorbent to flocculate the adsorbent containing contaminants (refer [0142]). The limitation “to improve the sorbent and membrane performance” is implied by Muramoto because the flocculating agent flocculates the adsorbent and aids in precipitating the adsorbent (Refer [0142]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Pirbazari teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Muramoto further teaches that “the amount of the adsorbent to be added can be determined as required by taking account of the kind of the adsorbent, adsorption performances, the kind and amount of a contaminant to be treated, a treatment time period, a cost, and the like. Generally, it can be 1 to 1,000 ppm, and it is preferably 10 to 100 ppm.” (refer [0124]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Pirbazari teaches limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Muramoto discloses that two or more adsorbents are used (refer [0043], [0122]), however, Muramoto does not specify whether the two or more adsorbents are added to the system individually (claim 8) or as a mixture (claim 9). Absent of showing criticality with respect to adsorbents are added individually or as a mixture, would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art because the adsorbents are added to the reactor where the adsorbents react with the water to be treated. Adding adsorbents individually or together doesn’t change the primary purpose of the adsorbent, which is to react with contaminants in water to be treated.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirbazari et al (US 5505841), in view of Muramoto et al. (US 2007/0119779), and CN 201999762 (hereinafter referred as '762, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gais (US 2011/0192795A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Pirbazari teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Muramoto teaches providing residence time of 1 hour (refer [0230]). Modified Pirbazari does not teach that the contact time of adsorbent and water to be treated in the sorption reactor is between 2 and 30 minutes.
Gais teaches a water treatment method comprising a step of injecting powdered activated carbon (PAC) into said water in order to obtain a water to be treated/PAC mixture; a step of feeding said water to be treated/PAC mixture into a contacting agitated area in order to obtain an agitated water to be treated/PAC mixture; a step of filtering said water to be treated/PAC mixture within a membrane filtration unit in order to produce treated water and a PAC-rich concentrate; a step of recirculating said PAC-rich concentrate upstream from and/or within said agitated area (refer abstract). Gais teaches that mixture of water to be treated and PAC being kept in said stirred area for a contact time ranging from 2 to 20 minutes (refer [0033]). Gais also teaches that duration of the contact time is chosen according to the concentration in pollutant to be eliminated (refer [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of modified Pirbazari to select contact time between 2 to 30 minutes to optimize removal of contaminants as taught by Gais. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 1, applicant argued that
PNG
media_image1.png
452
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because the Muramoto teaches a retentate return line and concentrate line (refer fig. 6-8). Selecting when or what portion of adsorbent to be discarded would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. It should be noted that the claimed limitation “upon the adsorbent mixture losing its capacity of adsorbing contaminants” is inherent because adsorbent that has been in contact with contaminants loses at least a portion of its adsorbing capacity.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights