DETAILED ACTION
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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-19, 21-22, 25 and 27 are pending.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-19, 21-22, 25 and 27 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the fibrous treatment agent has a length of at least 100 μm and a diameter of at least 5 μm” in lines 2-3. This is considered indefinite for the following reason: The geometrical shape (e.g., spherical, cylindrical, or rectangular prism) of the fibrous treatment agent is not specified. It is unclear how the length and diameter of the fibrous treatment agent related to the specific geometrical shape of the fibrous treatment agent.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-19, 21-22, 25 and 27 are also rejected under 35 U.S. §112 by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
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 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(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-12, 14, 16-19, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (US 8,353,641 B2, hereinafter “Berg”).
In regard to claim 1, Berg discloses a method of removing particulate matter from a fluid, comprising (Abstract; col. 16, lines 35-52, claim 1):
(i) providing an activating material capable of being affixed to the particulate matter, and affixing the activating material to the particulate matter to form an activated particle;
(ii) providing anchor particles and providing a tethering material capable of being affixed to the anchor particles;
(iii) adding the tether-bearing anchor particle to the fluid that comprises the activated particle, wherein the tethering material attaches to the activated particle to form a removable complex in the fluid that comprises the particulate matter; and
(iv) removing the removable complex from the fluid, thereby removing the particulate matter from the fluid by filtration, centrifugation, gravitational settling and/or skimming (physical separation) (col. 3, lines 45-49).
The activating material (a fibrous treatment agent) capable of being affixed to the particulate matter comprises an amine-modified particle, may comprise materials such as lignocellulosic material and cellulosic material, wherein cellulosic and lignocellulosic materials may include wood materials such as wood flakes, wood fibers, wood waste material, wood powder, lignins, or fibers from woody plants (col. 4, line 64 thru col. 5, line 4). The activating material particle sizes can range from a few nanometers to few hundred microns. In certain embodiments, macroscopic particles in the millimeter range may be suitable (col. 4, lines 51-63).
The fibrous treatment agent size of at least 100 µm and a diameter of at least 5 µm, and the flocs size of at least 1000 µm are considered prima facie obvious over the teachings of the activating material particle sizes can range from a few nanometers to few hundred microns, macroscopic particles in the millimeter range may be suitable taught by Berg (col. 4, lines 51-63). See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to claims 2 and 4, Berg discloses the activating material (a fibrous treatment agent) capable of being affixed to the particulate matter comprises an amine-modified particle may comprise materials such as lignocellulosic material and cellulosic material (i.e., a functionalized fibers), wherein cellulosic and lignocellulosic materials may include wood materials such as wood flakes, wood fibers, wood waste material, wood powder, lignins, or fibers from woody plants (col. 4, line 64 thru col. 5, line 4).
In regard to claim 5, Berg discloses the fibrous treatment agent comprises polymer-grafted fibers (col. 5, lines 18-45).
In regard to claims 8, 9 and 10, Berg discloses removing the removable complex from the fluid, thereby removing the particulate matter from the fluid by filtration, centrifugation, gravitational settling and/or skimming (physical separation) (col. 3, lines 45-49). The filtration comprises mesh filtration (i.e., membrane filtration) (col. 7, lines 62-67), and the gravitational settling comprises flocculation (col. 12, lines 5-11).
In regard to claim 11, Berg discloses the filtration comprises mesh filtration (i.e., sieve filtration) (col. 7, lines 62-67).
In regard to claim 12, Berg discloses in one embodiment, the fibrous treatment agent is a flocculant and/or a coagulation agent that causes flocculation (col. 12, lines 5-11).
In regard to claim 14, Berg discloses the activating material (a fibrous treatment agent) comprises an amine-modified (i.e., a polar group modified) particle may comprise materials such as lignocellulosic material and cellulosic material (i.e., a functionalized fibers) (col. 4, line 64 thru col. 5, line 4).
In regard to claims 16 and 18, Berg discloses the activating material particle material can have a shape of spherical, cylindrical, ovoid, or irregular (col. 5, lines 46-49). Berg discloses the activating material particle material sizes can range from a few nanometers to few hundred microns. In certain embodiments, macroscopic particles in the millimeter range may be suitable (col. 4, lines 51-63). The fibrous treatment agent size of at least 20 µm is considered obvious over the teachings of the activating material particle sizes can range from a few nanometers to few hundred microns, macroscopic particles in the millimeter range may be suitable taught by Berg (col. 4, lines 51-63). See MPEP 2144.05. In addition, since the activating material particle material can have a shape of irregular (col. 5, lines 46-49), the recitation of flakes shape is considered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Berg.
In regard to claims 17 and 19, Berg discloses the activating material (a fibrous treatment agent) comprises an amine-modified (i.e., a polar group modified) particle may comprise materials such as lignocellulosic material and cellulosic material (i.e., a functionalized fibers) (col. 4, line 64 thru col. 5, line 4).
In regard to claim 21, Berg discloses the fibrous treatment agent, with the addition of tether-bearing anchor particle, causes flocculation of contaminant materials (col. 12, lines 5-11).
In regard to claim 25, Berg discloses the filtration comprises mesh filtration (i.e., sieve filtration) (col. 7, lines 62-67). Berg discloses, in certain embodiments, macroscopic particles in the millimeter range may be suitable (col. 4, lines 51-63) which renders the recited mesh size of at least 100 µm prima facie obvious.
Claims 6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. (US 9,975,798 B2, hereinafter “Yamashita”).
In regard to claims 6 and 22, Berg does not explicitly disclose the step of washing and/or fragmenting the flocs to retrieve and/or reuse the fibrous treatment agent, wherein a portion of the fibrous treatment agent provided includes recovered fibrous treatment agent obtained after the physically separating the floes from the contaminated water.
However, Yamashita discloses a recovery device and a recovery method for selectively separating and recovering, from sludge flowing into a sewage treatment plant, only fiber components having a specific properties useful as a dewatering aid in dewatering difficult-to-dewater sludge, and to a sludge dehydration system and a sludge dehydration method which can utilize the recovered fiber components as a dewatering aid for difficult-to-dewater sludge and which can keep the stored amount of the dewatering aid to a minimum (col. 3, lines 27-36).
It is noted that both the Berg and Yamashita references direct a method for removing contaminant using a fibrous agent.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Berg, in view of Yamashita, to provide the step of washing and/or fragmenting the flocs to retrieve and/or reuse the fibrous treatment agent, wherein a portion of the fibrous treatment agent provided includes recovered fibrous treatment agent obtained after the physically separating the floes from the contaminated water, because (1) the method of recycle the fibrous treatment agent, wherein a portion of the fibrous treatment agent provided includes recovered fibrous treatment agent obtained after the physically separating the floes from the contaminated water is a known, effective method as suggested by Yamashita (col. 3, lines 27-36), and (2) this involves application of a known technique to improve a known method for removing contaminant using a fibrous agent to yield predictable results.
Claims 15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Domb et al. (US 2016/0214874 A1, hereinafter “Domb”).
In regard to claims 15 and 27, Berg does not explicitly disclose the fibrous treatment agent is iron grafted fibers and does not disclose iron grafted fibers having an aspect ratio of length over diameter of at least 10.
However, Domb discloses a method and formulations for treatment of wastewater by combination of a flocculant and surfactant (Abstract). Domb discloses flocculating agents, or flocculants, are important components which cause flocculation, the process of bringing together small particles to form larger particles by adding small quantities of chemicals in water and wastewater treatment (paragraph [0005]). Domb discloses inorganic flocculants (also called coagulants) with multivalent metals like aluminum and iron are widely employed (paragraph [0005]), and also discloses embodiment of flocculants comprising iron (paragraph [0054]).
It is noted that both the Berg and Domb references direct a method for removing contaminant using a flocculant agent.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Berg, in view of Domb, to provide the fibrous treatment agent is iron grafted fibers as suggested by Domb, because (1) the feature of using the fibrous treatment agent comprising iron is a known, effective method as taught by Domb (paragraphs [0005]; [0054]), and (2) this involves application of a known technique to improve a known method for removing contaminant using a fibrous agent to yield predictable results.
Regarding the feature of “iron grafted fibers having an aspect ratio of length over diameter of at least 10” Berg discloses the activating material particle material can have a shape of spherical, cylindrical, ovoid, or irregular (col. 5, lines 46-49). Berg discloses the activating material particle material sizes can range from a few nanometers to few hundred microns. In certain embodiments, macroscopic particles in the millimeter range may be suitable (col. 4, lines 51-63).
Consequently, the feature of “iron grafted fibers having an aspect ratio of length over diameter of at least 10” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize fibrous treatment agent activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the pollutant removal operation (time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the fibrous treatment agent bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feed as well as the nature of the treated water end-products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772