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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, recitations of “the metal” (singular) in the body of the claim are inconsistent with “treating at least one metal” (singular or plural) in the claim preamble;
“the reduction of the metal” lacks antecedent basis; and
“the reduction reaction mixture” also lacks antecedent basis.
In each of dependent claims 2, 3, 5 and 6, recitations of “the metal” (singular) in the body of the claim are inconsistent with “treating at least one metal” (singular or plural) in the claim 1 preamble.
In claim 3, each of “the products” and “the reduction reaction” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 4, “reducing composition comprises at least glucose” is unclear as to meaning, with transitional term “wherein” needed before “reducing composition” and such recitation is inconsistent with recitation in claim 1 of “a mineral or organic reducing composition”.
In claim 5, “the amount of energy released”, “the amount of energy needed to activate and/or sustain” and “the reduction reaction of the the metal” each lack antecedent basis; and,
“the step of neutralizing the eluent” lacks antecedent basis, being inconsistent with “neutralizing the effluent” in independent claim 1.
In claim 6, the entire portion of the claim beginning with “in particular” is indefinite, as it is unclear whether or not what follows is a positively recited, required limitation; with
“the metal in solution that is intended to be precipitated” being further unclear as to what is meant by the clause (does the claim encompass there being plural metals in solution, with only one of such metals being precipitated?).
In claim 7, in the preamble “system comprises at least” is ambiguous as to whether and what additional components the system includes or comprises; in the 1st “tank” clause, “the metal in solution” lacks antecedent basis;
in the “reaction chamber” clause, “chamber comprising at least” is ambiguous as to whether and what additional components the chamber includes or comprises, “a solution of at least one metal in solution” (singular or plural) is inconsistent with “the metal in solution” (singular) in the 1st “tank” clause, and “the preparation tank” lacks antecedent basis (does such tank refer to the 1st recited tank of claim 7?);
in the “an orifice clause, it is unclear whether the recited “dedicated tank” is the same or a different tank than the “tank for a neutralization solution-based composition” previously recited in the claim;
in the “at a second end” clause, “the reaction products” lacks antecedent basis; and
in the “a separation device” clause, it is unclear whether “so as to filter” is referring to a filter within or, alternately, in flow communication with, “the separation device” and each of “the precipitated reaction products” and “the products mixed in liquid form” lack antecedent basis, it also being unclear whether such recitation is referring to formation of both type products in the “reaction chamber” of the system.
Also in claim 7, the absence of “and” preceding “a separation device…” makes the claim ambiguous as to whether or not such separation device is the last in the series of recited system components.
In claim 8, it is unclear what is meant by “is associated with” regarding structural relationship and locations of the sensor with respect to the reaction chamber.
In claim 9, it is unclear what is meant by “is associated with” regarding structural relationship and location of the mechanism for heating the mixture with respect to tank, and “the tank” also lacks antecedent basis, it being unclear which of the tanks introduced in claim 7 is being referenced.
In claim 10, it is unclear what is meant by “is associated with” regarding structural relationship and location of the injection orifices with respect to the respective injection mechanisms”; with “the injection orifices” (plural) lacking antecedent basis, being inconsistent with recitation of “injection orifice” (singular) in claim 7.
In claim 11, it is unclear what is meant by “is associated with” regarding structural relationship and location of the injection mechanisms with respect to the respective injection flow control devices, with meaning of “parameterized at least as a function” being unclear (does such recitation refer to dimensions, configuration, operation of, and/or functionality of the injection mechanisms or flow control devices.
Also in claim 11, “the rate of the reactions of reduction… and of neutralization of the effluent” lack antecedent basis, and are inconsistent with claim 7 which only recites a single “reaction chamber”, implying there being only one or more corresponding reactions, not necessarily plural reactions.
Also in claim 11, recitation of “injection mechanisms” (plural) is lacking in antecedent basis, being inconsistent with recitation of “injection orifice” (singular) in claim 7.
In claim 12, it is unclear what is meant by “is associated with” regarding structural relationship and locations of the injection mechanisms with respect to the corresponsding control interfaces; and
recitation of “injection mechanisms” (plural) is lacking in antecedent basis, being inconsistent with recitation of “injection orifice” (singular) in claim 7.
In claim 13, again, recitation of “injection mechanisms” (plural) is lacking in antecedent basis, being inconsistent with recitation of “injection orifice” (singular) in claim 7; and each of “the lower end”, “the discharge orifice” (claim 7 recites “an orifice for discharging”, “the discharging orifice” is suggested), “the end” and “the upper part” are lacking in antecedent basis.
In claim 14, in the “an additional tank” clause, “the mixture of a second reducing composition” lacks antecedent basis, “the implementation of the process” lacks antecedent basis, and is unclear as to meaning (concerning process steps conducted in claim 1?);
in the “second reaction chamber” clause, “comprising at least” is ambiguous as to whether and what additional components the system includes or comprises, and “the mixture obtained from the additional tank” lacks antecedent basis, and “the reaction products” lacks clear antecedent basis, it being unclear whether such products are only a result of reactions occurring in the additional tank and/or second reaction chamber recited in claim 14, or may encompass the reaction products recited in claim 7; and
in the “a second device” clause, “the precipitated reaction products” and “the products mixed in liquid form” also lack antecedent basis, it being unclear whether such respective types of products refer to products resulting from processes occurring in the components of claim 14, or refer back to the products introduced in claim 7, it also being unclear whether such recitation is referring to formation of both type products in the “reaction chamber” of claim 7 or to resulting products from reactions occurring in the reaction chamber of claim 14.
Also in claim 14, the absence of “and” preceding “a second device…” makes the claim ambiguous as to whether or not such second device is the last in the series of recited system components.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courduvelis patent 4,956,097 (Courduvelis) in view of French patent publication FR2775278A1 and the accompanying English translation (‘278), as submitted with the IDS filed on 06/08/2023 and in view of Kretas et al patent 4,420,401 (Kretas).
For claim 1, Courduvelis discloses: A process for treating at least one metal in solution in an effluent (Abstract. column 1, lines 9-18 and column 2, lines 9, lines 9-20 and 58-65), characterized in that wherein the process comprises:
a step of adding and mixing a mineral or organic reducing composition into the solution comprising the metal (column 2, lines 9-14 and column 3, lines 24-32 regarding a preferred reducing agent being the organic-reducing material formaldehyde, and use of other strong organic reducing agents such as borohydrides), followed by
a step of activating the reduction of the metal and neutralizing the effluent by controlled addition of a composition based on a neutralization solution (activating the reduction of the metal by adding of a catalyst such as palladium or silver compounds and reductants like boranes or borohydrides, while adding a pH-adjusting neutralizing agent to the solution containing the reduction agent, see column 2, lines 24-32 and column 3, lines 34-43),
a step of precipitating the metal (column 3, lines 40-44 regarding initiating copper precipitation and see column 2, lines 19-20 regarding precipitation of metal precipitate generally), and
a step of recovering the precipitated metal and separating the precipitated metal from the neutralized effluent (figure 1 regarding separator 21 and also see column 4, lines 23-28 and 50-51 regarding precipitated slurry being fed into separator 21 in which it is divided into a solid recovery stream through line 22 and a discharge stream through line 23).
Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom differ from Courduvelis by requiring that the separating comprise filtration of the reduction reaction mixture.
Courduvelis incorporates by reference the disclosure of Kretas et al patent 4,420,401 (Kretas), see column 1, lines 26-46.
Kretas also discloses a process and system for treating effluent solutions having metal contaminants which are removed by catalytic reduction and subsequent filtration separation (column 4, lines 21-32 regarding solutions treated, column 6, lines 25-55 regarding catalytic reduction of the solution, and column 7, lines 28-34 regarding subsequent filtration as a simple and convenient separation means).
Publication ‘278 teaches a process for treating at least one metal in an effluent mixture or solution by a method step of adding a reducing agent to reduce one or more metals, followed by precipitation of the metal(s) and also teaching filtration of the precipitated metal(s).
(see page 1, lines 13-16 and page 6, lines 206-215 of the Translation regarding treatment of aqueous effluents containing metal ions including hexavalent chromium, as well as metals originating from industrial sources including copper, iron and zinc as described in the translation on page 5, lines 194-202;
the treatment including addition of a combination of neutralizing, precipitation-causing and reducing agents, particularly for reducing of chromium ions as described on page 8, line 313-323 of the translation;
the translation also teaching filtration of the treated effluent including precipitate on page 7, lines 252-260 and page 11, lines 447-453 and page 14, lines 565-567).
Publication ‘278 teaches that such combination of method steps, including filtration of the precipitated metal(s) enables to make a system for performing the method into a closed circuit with recirculation of chemicals and agents which are employed in a closed loop, thus greatly improving compactness, reliability and simplicity, and reducing costs of manufacture, construction maintenance, and enabling locating the system for performing the method on a mobile, portable platform, such as on a land or water motor vehicle (see the translation at page 9, lines 340-371 and page 14, lines 565-567) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating contaminated effluent solutions having metal contaminants which can be effectively treated with reducing agents, by modifying the Courduvelis method, to have included filtration of the precipitated reduction reaction mixture of solution, as cumulatively taught by Kretas and publication ‘278. Such modification would have advantageously utilized a form of separation which is a simple and convenient separation means and have enabled to make a system for performing the method into a closed circuit with recirculation of chemicals and agents which are employed, thus greatly improving compactness reliability and simplicity, and enabling locating the system for performing the method on a mobile, portable platform, such as on a land or water motor vehicle.
Such modification would have also reduced costs of manufacture, construction maintenance
For claim 2, Courduvelis further discloses wherein the step of activating the reduction of the metal also comprises a step of heating the mixture comprising the reducing composition and the solution comprising the metal in the effluent (column 2, lines 44-48 regarding “temperature of the decomposition step varying up to boiling…most preferably about 60-80 degrees C”).
For claim 3, Courduvelis further suggests wherein the reducing composition is selected so that products of the reduction reaction, other than the precipitated metal, are biodegradable (formaldehyde reducing composition used per column 3, lines 28-31 inherently resulting in non-toxic, or biodegradable reaction products).
For claim 5, Courduvelis further suggests wherein the amount of energy released during the step of neutralizing the eluent by the neutralization solution-based composition is at least greater than half the amount of energy needed to activate and/or sustain the reduction reaction of the metal (suggested by discussion of stoichiometric amounts of reducing agent vs. metal content being employed, together with adjusting of solution to the desired pH at column 2, lines 24-28).
The recited proportion of energy released during neutralizing relative to energy needed to activate or sustain reduction reaction is deemed to constitute a results effective variable for which it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment arts, to have optimized so as to maintain optimum energy and material balances. The MPEP at Sections 2144.04, part IV and 2145, parts I and II cite Case Law which has established the insufficiency of patentably distinguishing based on differences of specific values regarding sizes, proportion, ratio or ranges of parameters, particularly where the prior art teaches or suggests values which are similar to or overlap those claimed, absent a finding of unexpected results or criticality.
For claim 6, Publication ‘278 further teaches or suggests wherein the process comprises a prior step of selecting the reducing composition depending on at least two parameters including, firstly, the value of the redox potential of the reducing composition and, secondly, the metal in solution that is intended to be precipitated (see page 7, lines 278-284 regarding analysis and monitoring of particular physico-chemical characteristics of the effluents, concentration of pollutants and the Redox potential).
For independent system claim 7, Courduvelis further discloses: a system for implementing a treatment process as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that wherein the system comprises at least:
a reaction chamber (14) comprising at least, at a first (lower) end (column 3, lines 24-53 regarding catalytic reduction and precipitation reactions occurring in “column” or “chamber” 14) :
an orifice (10) for injecting a mixture comprising, firstly, a solution of at least one metal in solution in an effluent (figure “spent metal plating solution”) and, secondly, a reducing composition (11, figure “reducing agent, injection line 11 inherently associated with an injection orifice to the column or chamber), the mixture being obtained from a source of the effluent (see also column 2, lines 57-65 and column 3, lines 24-25 regarding effluent sources including metal plating baths or other chemical manufacturing sources),
an orifice (13, figure “catalyst”) “for injecting a neutralization solution-based composition obtained from a dedicated tank” (also see column 3, lines 34-36, injection line 13 inherently associated with an injection orifice to the column or chamber),
and, at a second (upper) end, an orifice (16, figure “depleted metal solution”, discharge line 16 inherently associated with a discharge orifice of the column or chamber) for discharging the reaction products,
and, a separation device connected to the discharge orifice of the reaction chamber so as to separate the precipitated reaction products from the products mixed in liquid form (separator 21, see column 4, lines 20-28).
Firstly system claim 7 differs from Couruvelis by requiring a orifice for specifically injecting the neutralization solution-based composition, as Couruvelis is acknowledged as utilizing line 13 which forms an orifice inlet to the reaction column or chamber functioning for addition of activating or catalyzing material to the chamber.
However, such distinction is deemed to be of little patentable weight, since it does not amount to a structural difference or distinction. The MPEP at Section 2114 cites Case Law which states that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus.
Secondly, system claim 7 differs from Couruvelis by requiring the system to also include: a preparing tank for preparing the mixture of the metal in solution in an effluent with a reducing composition, and
a tank for a neutralization solution-based composition.
Courduvelis incorporates by reference the disclosure of Kretas et al patent 4,420,401 (Kretas), see column 1, lines 26-46.
Kretas also discloses a process and system for treating effluent solutions having metal contaminants which are removed by catalytic reduction and subsequent filtration separation (column 4, lines 21-32 regarding solutions treated, column 6, lines 25-55 regarding catalytic reduction of the solution, and column 7, lines 28-34 regarding subsequent filtration as a simple and convenient separation means).
Kretas also teaches the treatment system to comprise a series of overflow tanks upstream of a reaction chamber for performing the catalyzed reduction, thus suggesting such tanks upstream of the reaction chamber for preparing and mixing the mixture, and for temporarily holding flow volumes of the mixture including neutralization solution-based composition. (column 7, lines 27-37).
Kretas teaches that such tanks upstream of the reaction chamber facilitate making the process a continuous process, with fewer separate process steps, thus increasing throughput of effluent solution requiring treatment, and yielding a greater volume of purified solution or water resulting.
Additionally, publication ‘278 teaches to store a neutralizing solution in a specific reservoir, i.e. tank 17, associated with a control valve 20 and solenoid valve 21 at page 11, lines 416-419, inherently enabling more precise control of timing and rate of addition of effluent solution and treatment materials.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Courduvelis system or apparatus, by adding the instantly tanks as cumulative taught by Kretas, upstream of the reaction column or chamber, and utilizing these for mixing and holding the effluent solution being treated, and reagents added thereto, as taught by Kretas, in order to facilitate making the separation process performed with the system, a continuous process, with fewer separate process steps, thus increasing throughput of effluent solution requiring treatment, and yielding a greater volume of purified solution or water resulting.
Addition of such tanks, accompanied by valves would also have advantageously enabled more precise control of timing and rate of addition of effluent solution and treatment materials.
Thirdly, claim 7 and claims dependent therefrom differ from Courduvelis by requiring the separation device connected to the discharge orifice of the reaction chamber so as to filter, or separate by filtration, the precipitated reaction products from the products mixed in liquid form.
Kretas also discloses a process and system for treating effluent solutions having metal contaminants which are removed by catalytic reduction and subsequent filtration separation (column 4, lines 21-32 regarding solutions treated, column 6, lines 25-55 regarding catalytic reduction of the solution, and column 7, lines 28-34 regarding subsequent filtration as a simple and convenient separation means).
Publication ‘278 teaches a process for treating at least one metal in an effluent mixture or solution (Abstract. column 1, lines 9-18 and column 2, lines 9, lines 9-20 and 58-65), by a method step of adding a reducing agent to reduce one or more metals,
followed by precipitation of the metal(s) (column 2, lines 9-14 and column 3, lines 24-32 regarding a preferred reducing agent being the organic-reducing material formaldehyde, and use of other strong organic reducing agents such as borohydrides, and see column 3, lines 40-44 regarding initiating copper precipitation and see column 2, lines 19-20 regarding precipitation of metal precipitate generally), and
also teaches filtration of the precipitated metal(s), (also see figure 1 regarding separator 21 and column 4, lines 23-28 and 50-51 regarding precipitated slurry being fed into separator 21 in which it is divided into a solid recovery stream through line 22 and a discharge stream through line 23) .
Publication ‘278 teaches that such combination of method steps, including filtration of the precipitated metal(s) enables to make a system for performing the method into a closed circuit with recirculation of chemicals and agents which are employed, thus greatly improving compactness reliability and simplicity, and enabling locating the system for performing the method on a mobile, portable platform, such as on a land or water motor vehicle (see the translation at page 9, lines 340-371 and page 14, lines 565-567).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating contaminated effluent solutions having metal contaminants which can be effectively treated with reducing agents, by modifying the Courduvelis method, to have adapted the disclosed separator or included a separator for filtration of the precipitated reduction reaction mixture of solution, as cumulatively taught by Kretas and publication ‘278.
Such modification would have advantageously utilized a form of separation which is a simple and convenient separation means and have enabled to make a system for performing the method into a closed circuit with recirculation of chemicals and agents which are employed, thus greatly improving compactness reliability and simplicity, and enabling locating the system for performing the method on a mobile, portable platform, such as on a land or water motor vehicle.
For claim 8, Courduvelis in view of publication ‘278 further teaches wherein the reaction chamber is associated with at least one temperature measurement sensor and/or at least one pH measurement sensor and/at least one redox potential measurement sensor to enable more precise control of the treatment process steps
(Courduvelis at column 3, lines 40-47 regarding maintaining a temperature in a preferred range of 50-90 degrees C or 60-80 degrees C, inherently requiring at least one temperature thermocouple or sensor and ‘278 translation at page 12, lines 464-484 regarding at least one pH sensor or probe, and page 8, lines 324-326 regarding a suitable RedOx probe or sensor).
For claim 9, Courduvelis further discloses or suggests wherein the tank is associated with a mechanism for heating the mixture (again see column 3, lines 42-48 regarding maintaining an elevated temperature of between 50-90 degrees or up to the boiling point, necessarily requiring a mechanism for heating the mixture).
For claim 10, Courduvelis in view of publication ‘278 further suggests wherein each of the reactor chamber injection orifices is associated with a respective injection mechanism (see figure of Courduvelis regarding plural injection orifices defined by intersection of input lines 10 and 13 to the reaction column or chamber, and see ‘278 at page 11, lines 416-427 regarding utilization of valves 20 and 24 and solenoid valve 25 for controlled injection of neutralizing solution and effluents) .
For claim 11, dependent on claim 10, publication ‘278 further suggests wherein each of the injection mechanisms is associated with an injection flow control device (again see 278 at page 11, lines 416-427 regarding utilization of valves 20 and 24 and solenoid valve 25 for controlled injection of neutralizing solution and effluents),
parameterized at least as a function,
firstly, of the volume of the reaction chamber and,
secondly, of the rate of the reactions of reduction of the metal and of neutralization of the effluent by the neutralization solution-based composition (also see publication ‘278 at page 10, lines 389-392 regarding determination of tank volume, quantity of effluents to be treated and flow rates, and page 10, lines 400-401 regarding nature of the effluent to be treated).
For claim 12, dependent on claim 10, publication ‘278 further suggests wherein each of injection mechanisms is associated with a control interface connected to at least one temperature measurement sensor and/or at least one pH measurement sensor and/at least one redox potential measurement sensor (Courduvelis at column 3, lines 40-47 regarding maintaining a temperature in a preferred range of 50-90 degrees C or 60-80 degrees C, inherently requiring at least one temperature thermocouple or sensor and
‘278 translation at page 11, lines 435-441 regarding flow pumps and solenoid valves. at page 12, lines 464-484 regarding at least one pH sensor or probe, and page 8, lines 324-326 regarding a suitable RedOx probe or sensor, and page 13, lines 527-533 regarding control of a plurality of solenoid valves and pumps regarding flow throughout the system).
For claim 13, Courduvelis further discloses wherein the reaction chamber is arranged in a substantially vertical arrangement so that,
firstly, the injection orifices are positioned at the lower end of the chamber and that,
secondly, the discharge orifice is positioned at the end of the upper part (figure regarding injection orifice associated with inlet line 10 communicating with lower part of the reaction column or chamber and discharge orifice associated with discharge line 16 communicating with upper part of the column or chamber).
For claim 14, Kretas further suggests system modification such that wherein the system comprises:
an additional tank for preparing the mixture of a second reducing composition with the liquid solution resulting from the implementation of the process, the second reducing composition being suitable for a second metal in solution, and Courduvelis in combination with Kretas further teaches or suggests
a second reaction chamber comprising at least, at a first end.
an injection orifice for the mixture obtained from the additional tank,
an injection orifice for a neutralization solution-based composition, and,
at a second end, an orifice for discharging the reaction products, and,
a second device for separating the precipitated reaction products from the products mixed in liquid form;
(Courduvelis again suggesting a reaction column or chamber 14 having such injection and discharging orifices and a separation device for separating precipitated products as discussed above with regard to claim 7, with
Kretas teaching or suggestion duplication of the system components, at column 7, lines 34-38 and Example 6, column 11, line 53-column 12, line 12 regarding plural series of sequential plural processing and separation tanks, advantageously purifying the effluent so that it may be discharged directly to the environment).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courduvelis patent 4,956,097 (Courduvelis) in view of French patent publication FR2775278A1 and the accompanying English translation (‘278), as submitted with the IDS filed on 06/08/2023 and in view of Kretas et al patent 4,420,401 (Kretas), as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-14 above, and further in view of Denkewicz et al patent 5,935,609 (Denkewicz).
Denkewicz teaches to supplement a silver-containing reducing composition used for removing toxic metal ions from water, by addition of a carbohydrate which may be glucose (see Abstract and column 1, line 44-column 2, line15 regarding purifying water by removal of hazardous metal ions including iron, copper, zinc, mercury and lead, while also killing bacterial concentrations, and see column 2, line 43-column 3, line 13 regarding mixing silver with carbohydrate-type chemical reducing agents and glucose).
The aqueous solutions treated by Courduvelis are disclosed as being discharged into sewage plants and waterways (column 1, lines 9-18 of Courduvelis).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have added glucose to the reducing composition utilized by Courduvelis, as suggested by Denkewicz, in order to reduce bacterial concentrations in the effluent being treated, while removing hazardous metal ions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Selm et al patent 3,027,321 and Wegner patent 10,683,223 are further representative of prior art concerning systems for removing transition and heavy metals from waste water by process steps including membrane filtration, reduction and precipitation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to Joseph Drodge at his direct government telephone number of 571-272-1140, or at alternate cell phone number 703-401-6309. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send a communication via E-mail communication to the Examiner's Patent Office E-mail address: "Joseph.Drodge@uspto.gov". Such E-main communication should be in accordance with provisions of MPEP (Manual of Patent Examination Procedures) section 502.03 & related MPEP sections. E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and will be made of record, under Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Additionally, the examiner’s supervisor, Magali Slawski, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-270-3960.
The formal facsimile phone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300. The facsimile phone number for informal communication directly with the examiner is 571-273-1140.
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, and through Private PAIR only for unpublished applications. For more
information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
JWD
09/25/2025
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773