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 response to Applicant's amendment filed on April 20, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 16, 18 and 25 have been amended. Claims 3, 7, 13, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 28-34 have been cancelled. No new claim has been added. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-19, 21-22, 25 and 27 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-19, 21-22, 25 and 27 are examined herein.
Response to Amendments
The Amendments to the Claims filed 04/20/2026 have been entered. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-19, 21-22, 25 and 27 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to the Claims both filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered. It is noted that claim 1, an independent claim from which all dependent claims depend, has been amended to recite “wherein the physically separating step is a screening step with a mesh size of at least 500 µm; wherein the fibrous treatment agent comprises fibers having an aspect ratio of at least 10” in the context of a method of separating contaminants from contaminated water as claimed.
Applicant argues that the claim 1 as amended and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s), Berg et al. (US 8,353,641 B2), Yamashita et al. (US 9,975,798 B2), and/or Domb et al. (US 2016/0214874 A1), since the cited references do not teach the amended features of, in the context of a method of separating contaminants from contaminated water, “wherein the physically separating step is a screening step with a mesh size of at least 500 µm; wherein the fibrous treatment agent comprises fibers having an aspect ratio of at least 10”. See Remarks, page 5-7.
In response, the applicants’ arguments direct a newly amended claim limitation which is a new issue. Therefore, the arguments are considered moot. Applicant's amendment necessitated a modified/new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified/new ground of rejections to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-19, 21-22, 25 and 27 are presented, in view of the previously presented prior art(s), Berg et al. (US 8,353,641 B2), Yamashita et al. (US 9,975,798 B2), and/or Domb et al. (US 2016/0214874 A1), as presented in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
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.
Regarding the recitation of “the physically separating step is a screening step with a mesh size of at least 500 μm”, Berg discloses the removal of the agglomerations (i.e., flocs) can take place by filtration (col. 11, lines 18-20). Berg discloses the filtration includes using a mesh size 50/70 mesh (210-297 μm) (col. 11, lines 34-36). Berg discloses: the anchor particle can comprise sand. In embodiments, the tethering material can be selected from the group consisting of chitosan, lupamin, BPEI, and PDAC. The activated particle can be a particle functionalized by attachment of at least one amine functional group (col. 3, lines 57-61).
Berg does not disclose the specific feature of “the physically separating step is a screening step with a mesh size of at least 500 μm”.
However, with respect to the “the physically separating step is a screening step with a mesh size of at least 500 μm”, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Berg does not expressly disclose the claimed “the physically separating step is a screening step with a mesh size of at least 500 μm”; however one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the mesh size as claimed since Berg discloses the anchor particle can comprise additional materials, along with sand, such as chitosan, lupamin, BPEI, and PDAC, or the activated particle functionalized by attachment of at least one amine functional group (Berg, col. 3, lines 57-61), and Berg discloses the removal of the agglomerations (i.e., flocs) can take place by filtration (Berg, col. 11, lines 18-20). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding the recitation of “wherein the fibrous treatment agent comprises fibers having an aspect ratio of at least 10”, Berg discloses the removal of particulate material comprises removing “anchor particles to remove particles with a flake or needle morphology” (col. 8, lines 36-38). This renders the recitation of “wherein the fibrous treatment agent comprises fibers having an aspect ratio of at least 10” prima facie obvious, since one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that needle morphology taught by Berg can have an aspect ratio of at least 10 as recited.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights