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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, reading on claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search for group I would result in discovery of groups II-IV and there is no additional burden; US 2009-0221531 does not teach purification ex vivo. This is not found persuasive because ex vivo is not a required part of the special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 4-6 and 8 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 4-6 and 8 recite the limitation "contaminated water". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term has previously been defined. It is not clear if it is the same or different contaminated water.
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)(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.
(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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0221531 by Coppolino et al. (Coppolino).
In regard to claim 1, Coppolino teaches a method for the removal of heavy metal contamination from water comprising contacting contaminated water with inositol hexakiphosphate-hexacitrate (IP6-citrate) to produce purified water ([0007]-[0008]; [0013]; [0023]; Table 2; [0037]).
In regard to claim 9, Coppolino teaches the heavy metal contaminated water is contaminated with antimony, arsenic, cadmium, cerium, chromium, copper, europium, iron, nickel, lead, lithium, magnesium, mercury, molybdenum, potassium, sodium, zinc, or mixtures ([0023]-[0024]).
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 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0221531 by Coppolino et al. (Coppolino), as noted above, in view of Adsorption of selected heavy meatls on modified nano cellulose by Madivoli (Madivoli).
In regard to claim 2, Coppolino teaches the limitations as noted above. Coppolino does not teach the IP6-citrate is provided as IP6-citrate-modified cellulose material.
Madivoli teaches citric acid is modified with cellulose to be used as an adsorbent for heavy metals (Conclusion). Madivoli teaches cellulose is an inexpensive renewable bio based raw material used as a filter membrane (abstract). Madivoli teahces citric acid modified cellulose has a good capacity to remove heavy metals (abstract).
It would be obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to incorporate cellulose as a packing material adsorbent, as taught by Madivoli, with IP6-citrate of Coppolino as it is a known raw material used for filter membranes with applications involving heavy metals. There are many advantages to using cellulose such as it being inexpensive and having a good capacity to remove heavy metals.
In regard to claim 3, Coppolino teaches the limitations as noted above. Further, Coppolino teaches the IP6-citrate- material is in the form of particles ([0007]; crystalline powder, Table 2; ).
In regard to claim 4, Coppolino teaches the limitations as noted above. Further, Coppolino teaches the IP6-citrate-modified cellulose material are mixed with contaminated water followed by filtration to remove the IP6-citrate modified cellulose particles ([0021]).
In regard to claim 5, Coppolino teaches the limitations as noted above. Madivoli teaches reducing the amount of heavy metals in water samples through adsorption with citric acid modified cellulose (3.9). Madivoli teaches adsorbent dosage was increased and metal adsorption efficiency was increased as a result (3.9). Madivoli teahces available adsorption sites increased by increasing the adsorbent dose (3.9). Modified Coppolino does not teach the IP6-citrate-modified cellulose material are mixed with contaminated water in an amount of about 0.25-2.5 g/kg contaminated water. As the method efficiency of operation, metal adsorption efficiency, cost of operation, and adsorbent sites are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said adsorbent dosage, the precise adsorbent dosage would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed adsorbent dosage cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the adsorbent dosage in the method of modified Coppolino to obtain the desired balance between the adsorption efficiency and cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
In regard to claim 6, Coppolino teaches the limitations as noted above. Madivoli teaches the material are mixed with contaminated water for about 1-30 minutes (3.7, Figure 6).
In regard to claim 7, Coppolino teaches the limitations as noted above. Madivoli teahces packed bed (abstract).
In regard to claim 8, Coppolino teaches the limitations as noted above. Coppolino teahces contaminated water is passed over the particles to produce purified water ([0007]-[0008]; [0013]; [0023]; Table 2; [0037]). Additionally, Madivoli teaches contaminated water is passed over the packed bed to produce the purified water (abstract).
In regard to claims 10-12, Coppolino teaches the limitations as noted above. Modified Coppolino does not teach the purified water contains 5%, 2%, or 1% or less of the heavy metals contained in the contaminated water.
As the metal adsorption efficiency and cost of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said water contamination level, the precise water contamination level would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed water contamination level cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the adsorbent dosage and length of contact time in the method of modified Coppolino to obtain the desired balance between the adsorption efficiency and cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9958. The examiner can normally be reached 9 to 5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/KARA M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777