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 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a U.S. national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/US23/66077 filed April 21, 2023, which claims priority to U.S Provisional Patent Application No. 63/363,462 filed on April 22, 2022.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (i.e. claims 1-15) in the reply filed by Applicant’s representative Kyle B. Straughhan on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. However, Applicant fails to make any argument over the Restriction Requirement. In addition, Applicant have withdrawn claims 16-20 from further consideration as non-elected subject matters. Therefore, the restriction is treated as election without traverse.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are under examination on the merits.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 defines the halogenated organic compounds, including but not limited to chlorinated ethenes, chlorinated ethanes, chlorinated methane, chlorofluorocarbons. polyfluorinated alkyl substances, and organochlorine pesticides. Claim 8 contains a broader scope of “halogenated organic compounds”, and a narrower scope of “including but not limited to chlorinated ethenes, chlorinated ethanes, chlorinated methane, chlorofluorocarbons. polyfluorinated alkyl substances, and organochlorine pesticides”, wherein the term “including but not limited to” would have rendered claim 8 indefinite. In addition, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2,417,939 (“the `939 patent”) to Kuh et al.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a method of treating or remediating a site contaminated with a contaminant comprising the steps: adding to the site; dithionite; a sorbent material; an alkaline pH controlling agent with a pH greater than 7.
Example 5 of the `939 patent (col. 4, ln.64 to col. 5, ln.5) discloses a method of treating or remediating a site (i.e., reaction mixture in a reactor) contaminated with a contaminant (i.e., reaction by-products) comprising the steps: adding to the site; dithionite (i.e., 0.5 part sodium dithionite); a sorbent material (i.e., 5 parts of activated charcoal); an alkaline pH controlling agent (sodium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide) with a pH greater than 7. Therefore, the `939 patent anticipates claims 1-2.
In terms of claim 3 further comprising an initial step of mixing the dithionite, the activated carbon, and the pH controlling agent into a slurry, Example 5 of the `939 patent teaches the method comprising an initial step of mixing sodium dithionite, the activated carbon, and the pH controlling agent of sodium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide into a slurry before stirring 15 minutes, followed by filtration. Therefore, the `939 patent anticipates claim 3.
In terms of claim 4 wherein the ditbionite:activated carbon are present in amounts relative one another by weight in a range of 1:0.001 to 1:100 and the pH controlling agent is present in sufficient amounts to raise the pH of the combination to greater than 9, Example 5 of the `939 patent teaches mixing 0.5 part sodium dithionite with 5 parts of activated charcoal. The amounts of ditbionite relative one another of activated carbon by weight is 1: 10, which reads on the range of 1:0.001 to 1:100.
In terms of claim 12 wherein the method comprises the additional step of: adjusting the ratio of dithionite and activated carbon in the slurry, Example 5 of the `939 patent teaches adding ditbionite, activated carbon and the pH controlling agent of sodium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide. The method of adding the reactants to form a reacting mixture is indeed a process of adjusting the ratio of dithionite and activated carbon in the slurry from small amount into larger amount.
In terms of claim 13 wherein the pH control ling agent is increased in ratio such that the pH is between 10 and 13, Example 5 of the `939 patent teaches sodium hydroxide was added to a pH of 10.0-10.5, and followed by adding additional 0.5 part of calcium hydroxide to further increase pH of the reaction mixture.
In terms of claim 14 wherein the method comprises the additional step of monitoring the pH level of the site and adding additional pH controlling agent if the pH falls out of the range of 10 to 13, Example 5 of the `939 patent teaches sodium hydroxide was added to a pH of 10.0-10.5, and followed by adding additional 0.5 part of calcium hydroxide to make the reaction mixture maintaining pH not falling out of the range of 10 to 13.
In terms of claim 15 wherein the pH controlling agent is acidic with a pH less than 7, Example 5 of the `939 patent teaches after stirring 15 minutes the solution was clarified by filtration and filtered precipitate was acidified by pH controlling agent of 33% acetic acid to adjust the pH to 4.0-5.5, which is less than 7.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,663,781 (“the `781 patent”) to Huling et al.
In terms of claim 1, the `781 patent teaches a method of treating or remediating a site contaminated with a contaminant (Abstract, Contaminated water is treated by adsorbing contaminant onto a sorbent; col 6, In 3-12, Contaminated water flows through the reactive media, which comprises a sorbent, such as activated carbon. Hence the site contaminated with a contaminant is the water.) comprising the steps: adding to the site; dithionite (col 6, In 3-12, Contaminated water flows through the reactive media, which comprises a sorbent, such as activated carbon. contaminants are adsorbed, immobilized and concentrated on the activated carbon, which also contains iron capable of facilitating Fenton-driven oxidation reactions. Prior to oxidation sodium dithionite is introduced into the activated carbon; col 5, In 56-65, The treatment process of the present invention is designed to enhance Fenton oxidation. This is accomplished by adding a reductant such as sodium dithionite For example, sodium dithionite); a sorbent material (col 6, In 3-12, Contaminated water flows through the reactive media, which comprises a sorbent, such as activated carbon, contaminants are adsorbed, immobilized and concentrated on the activated carbon sodium dithionite is introduced into the activated carbon); an alkaline pH controlling agent with a pH greater than 7 (col 10, In 16- 28, Laboratory results indicate that the Fenton mechanism is an acid-generating process. This system comprises a continuous pH measurement and adjustment of pH using an acceptable source of base, such as sodium hydroxide).
In terms of claim 2, the `781 patent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sorbent material is activated carbon (col 6, In 3-12, Contaminated water flows through the reactive media, which comprises a sorbent, such as activated carbon contaminants are adsorbed, immobilized and concentrated on the activated carbon sodium dithionite is introduced into the activated carbon).
In terms of claim 3, the `781 patent teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising an initial step of mixing the dithionite, the activated carbon, and the pH controlling agent into a slurry (col 9, In 47-59, the granulated activated carbon/iron medium can be slurried, pumped and remixed in the treatment unit).
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 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “the `781 patent in view of the `939 patent, and US2019/0366263 (“the `263 publication”) to Peter Zhu.
In terms of claim 5, the `781 patent teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the dithionite:activated carbon are present (col 6, In 3-12, Contaminated water flows through the reactive media, which comprises a sorbent, such as activated carbon contaminants are adsorbed, immobilized and concentrated on the activated carbon sodium dithionite is introduced into the activated carbon) and the pH controlling agent is present (col 10, In 16-28, Laboratory results indicate that the Fenton mechanism is an acid-generating process This system comprises a continuous pH measurement and adjustment of pH using an acceptable source of base, such as sodium hydroxide). In addition, the `781 patent teaches wherein the step of adding to the site is performed by injection (col 5, In 1-8, Adsorption immobilizes and concentrates the contaminants onto the sorbent. an oxidant, such as hydrogen peroxide, is injected, which reacts with the iron, generating a strong oxidant, the hydroxyl radical. The hydroxyl radical oxidizes sorbed contaminants).
In terms of claim 6 wherein the injection comprises high pressure injection or fracturing, the `781 patent (col. 5, lns. 1-8) teaches the step of adding to the site is performed by injecting. In addition, the `781 patent (Abstract) teaches contaminated water is treated by adsorbing contaminant onto a sorbent to concentrate the contaminant and then oxidizing the contaminant via the Fenton and related reactions, wherein iron is attached to the sorbent or can be added in solution with an oxidant, and the iron attached to the sorbent or iron in solution, can be used to oxidize contaminants on or near the surface of the sorbent. The `781 patent (col. 8, lns. 31-43) further teaches the adsorption/oxidation process can also be used in above-ground treatment systems and be constructed in existing or planned containment systems to serve as a pressure release mechanism to improve hydraulic control. Based on said discloser by the `781 patent, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to employe high pressure injection as the injection to improve the contact of the materials to the site in the method if treating or remediating a site contaminated with a contaminant.
In terms of claim 7 wherein the injection comprises low pressure injection, the `781 patent does not teach the injection comprises low pressure injection. However, the `781 patent (col. 8, lns. 31-43) further teaches the adsorption/oxidation process can also be used in above-ground treatment systems and be constructed in existing or planned containment systems to serve as a pressure release mechanism to improve hydraulic control. Based on the `781 patent, low pressure injection is a routine optimization of injection through a pressure release mechanism to improve hydraulic control. Therefore, claim 7 would have been obvious over the `939 patent in view of the `781 patent.
In terms of claim 8 wherein the site is contaminated with at least one of the sets comprising halogenated organic compounds, including but not limited to chlorinated ethenes, chlorinated ethanes, chlorinated methane, chlorofluorocarbons. polyfluorinated alkyl substances, and organochlorine pesticides, the `939 patent teaches the method of claim 3, but does not specifically teach wherein the site is contaminated with at least one of the set comprising halogenated organic compounds, including but not limited to chlorinated ethenes, chlorinated ethanes, chlorinated methanes, chlorofluorocarbons, polyfluorinated alky! substances, and organochlorine pesticides. However, in a similar invention, the `263 publication teaches a method for the removal and control of pollutants and gases and suspended particulates in the air of an enclosed space) comprising the steps: adding to the site; dithionite (para [0100], additives can also include preservatives such as sodium dithionite); a sorbent material (para [0236], wherein the absorbent liquid medium is a solid/liquid mixture, wherein the solid is selected from carbon black (activated charcoal)); an alkaline pH controlling agent with a pH greater than 7 (para [0254], wherein the absorbent liquid is optionally containing. sodium hydroxide), wherein the site is contaminated with at least one of the set comprising halogenated organic compounds, including but not limited to chlorinated ethenes, chlorinated ethanes, chlorinated methanes, chlorofluorocarbons, polyfluorinated alkyl substances, and organochlorine pesticide (Table 2).
In terms of claim 9 wherein the site is contaminated with at least one chlorinated ethene from the set comprising perchloroethene, trichloroethene,dichloroethene isomers, and vinyl chloride, the `939 patent teaches the method of claim 3, and the `263 publication further teaches wherein the site is contaminated with at least one chlorinated ethene from the set comprising perchloroethene, trichloroethene, dichloroethene isomers, and vinyl chloride (Table 2, Other Common Air Pollutants and Their Properties, Useful for Removal, Trichloroethene; Abstract, The invention discloses methods and apparatus(es) for the removal and control of pollutants and gases and suspended particulates in the air of an enclosed space).
In terms of claim 10 wherein the site is contaminated with at least one organic nitro compound from the set comprising trinitrotoluene, hexogen, and octogen, the `939 patent teaches the method of claim 3, and the `263 publication further teaches wherein the site is contaminated with at least one organic nitro compound from the set comprising trinitrotoluene, hexogen, and octogen (para [0132], Other additives include microbial materials that are known to be beneficial for the degradation of contaminants which are known to digest trinitrotoluene).
In terms of claim 11 wherein the site is contaminated with at least one chemically reducible chemical from the set comprising chromium (VI) and perchlorate, the `939 patent teaches the method of claim 3, and the `263 publication further teaches wherein the site is contaminated with at least one chemically reducible chemical from the set comprising chromium and perchlorate (para [0086], Examples of pollutants or contaminants are chromium and the like; Abstract, The invention discloses methods and apparatus(es) for the removal and control of pollutants and gases and suspended particulates in the air of an enclosed space), but does not specifically teach wherein the chromium is chromium (IV). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to include chromium (IV) as the chromium contaminant to ensure proper remediation of the contaminated site.
Conclusions
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
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 supervisor, 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