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 2, 5, and 6 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.
Claims 2 & 6 each contain the recitation “such as” and claim 5 recites “for example”. These recitations render the claims indefinite because it is not clear whether the limitations following said phrases are part of the claimed invention. For examination purpose, the claims will be given the broader interpretation, e.g., biological filtration.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CN104445743A (hereinafter “CN ‘743”).
With respect to claims 1, 3, and 8, CN ‘743 discloses a method for reducing organic matter contained in wastewater utilizing a two-stage catalytic oxidation steps. The first oxidation stage is a homogeneous phase oxidation wherein the wastewater is contacted with iron salt and hydrogen peroxide. The second oxidation stage uses a fixed-bed heterogeneous catalytic oxidation comprising an inert carrier such as granular activated carbon and quartz sand, and transition metal such as iron, manganese, and copper. See page 1, Background Technique, 2nd paragraph; page 2, Summary of the Invention, paragraphs 6-9.
With respect to claim 5, CN ‘743 discloses:
-passing the wastewater to a pH adjustment tank to control the pH value between 3 and 6;
-sending the adjusted pH wastewater to a primary oxidation reactor containing iron salt and hydrogen peroxide which generates free and oxygenates said wastewater (claimed steps b) and c));
-passing the effluent from the primary oxidation reactor to a secondary oxidation reactor (a packed bed reactor) wherein hydrogen peroxide is continuously added for further purification;
- adding alkali to adjust the pH to 7-8 (equivalent to claimed coagulating suspended and colloidal solids);
-passing to flocculation sedimentation tank; and
-discharging the water after passing the test.
See page 2, Summary of the Invention, paragraph 8.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104445743A (hereinafter “CN ‘743”) in view of US 2019/0092662 to Kubota et al. (hereinafter “Kubota”) and CN110156142A (hereinafter “CN ‘142”).
The teachings of CN ‘743 are as discussed above.
With respect to claims 2, 6, 9-12, and 14, CN ‘743 fails to disclose the claimed step of subjecting wastewater to biological filtration.
Kubota is directed to treating waste water to reduce organic pollutants utilizing ozone oxidation reaction and biological treatment using microorganisms (see [0002]). The process comprises mixing ozone with wastewater (ozone oxidation) and then biologically treating with microorganisms (see [0017] & [0028]). In the biological treatment, a biofilm is used to efficiently perform the contact and separation between wastewater and the microorganism (see [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified CN ‘743 and utilized oxidation and include biological treatment as disclosed by Kubota because the process of Kubota prevents an inhibition of biological treatment while enjoying advantages of wastewater treatment by ozone oxidation, reducing wastewater treatment costs, and realizing excellent treatment by a simple process (see [0011]).
With respect to claims 4, 7, 13 and 14, neither CN ‘743 nor Kubota discloses treating drinking water with chlorine. However, CN ‘142 discloses chloring disinfection is widely method for treating drinking water (see page 1, Background Technique, 1st paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the disinfection step in treating water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IN SUK C BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772