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 § 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 1-6, 8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5885602 A (hereinafter US 602) in view of Demeneix, B. and Hahn, M.E., 2020. Human Health and Ocean Pollution. Annals of Global Health, 86(1), p.151 (hereinafter NPL).
Regarding claim 1, US 602 discloses a method for the reduction/removal of organic and inorganic contaminants in an aquatic environment (see US 602 abstract, col 2 lines 16-45; col 3 lines 33-39; col 4 lines 33-45; col 6 lines 3-40), which is deemed a method of removing contaminants from a water-based liquid.
US 602 discloses the method comprises adding a contaminant-reducing agent delivery composition (see US 602 abstract; claims 1, 6 & 7). US 602 discloses the contaminant-reducing composition comprises superabsorbent solid organic polymer and contaminant-reducing agent (see US 602 col 3 lines 33-38; col 3 lines 57-61; col 5 line 65 – col 6 line 2 (US 602 discloses “it has been found that certain superabsorbent polymers are useful as matrices for contaminant-reducing agents effective for reducing the concentration of organic and inorganic contaminants, in aquatic or terrestrial environments, with a single application or multiple applications of a solid or liquid formulation” (see US 602 col 3 lines 33-38).). US 602 discloses contaminant-reducing agent is a film-forming agent, such as sorbitan monooleate, for the removal/reduction of visible iridescent residues of floating petroleum products, diesel No. 2, oils, and/or gasoline from an aqueous environment, i.e. water, as well as ““Impregnation of superabsorbent polymers with fatty alcohol film-forming agents such as POE-2-isostearyl alcohol or sorbitan monooleate appear to delay or slow down the rate of water absorption of superabsorbent polymers such as SUPER SORB or WATER LOCK G-100, thereby providing another useful mechanism for slow or controlled release of contaminant-reducing agents” (see US 602 col 11 lines 23-29; see also US 602 col 7 lines 5-16 and 55-58; col 7 line 66 – col 8 line 3; col 11 lines 23-29; col 11 lines 15-37), which is deemed exposing the liquid to a solid surface on which is retained sorbitan monooleate surfactant.
US 602discloses the organic and inorganic contaminants include oil, petroleum, “non-petroleum organic contaminants, include those found in industrial waste, such as those from textile and paper mills, citrus processors, chemical manufacturers, and transportation facilities, as well as restaurants and institutions, such as commercial kitchens, food processing plants, and the like. Other sources of contaminant production include crude oil spills, chemical and solvent leaks, fuel oil leaks, and creosote contamination. Inorganic contaminants include, for example, inorganic sulfur and ferrous compounds, metallic elements, as well as heavy metals, such as mercury, and certain other copper compounds used as herbicides and algicides” (see US 602 col 6 lines 3-15). US 602 discloses that the film-forming agent reduces surface contaminants, i.e. contaminants which are capable of floating on the surface of water, such as oil or petroleum or other surface contaminants (see US 602 col 7 lines 5-16). US 602 does not disclose method of removing microplastic particles from water and does not disclose the sorbitan monooleate is present in a concentration suitable for entrapping microplastic particles.
NPL discloses the state of the ocean environment in relation to the various pollutants in the ocean, i.e. “Pollution of the oceans is widespread, worsening, and in most countries poorly controlled. It is a complex mixture of toxic metals, plastics, manufactured chemicals, petroleum, urban and industrial wastes, pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceutical chemicals, agricultural runoff, and sewage” (see NPL page 2, Environmental Findings). NPL discloses that plastic, including microplastics and nanoplastics, are pervasive in aquatic environments, such as oceans, rivers, and seas (see NPL figure 1; pages 9-10/Plastic Pollution of the Oceans; page 35/Conclusions left and right columns; page 37/left column/Conclusion 7). NPL discloses “Chemical and plastic pollutants have become ubiquitous in the earth’s oceans and contaminate seas and marine organisms from the high Arctic to the abyssal depths (see NPL page 35/right column/Conclusions 1.). NPL discloses “Plastic pollution is one of the most pervasive and highly visible threats to the health of the oceans today. Once discharged into the natural environment, plastic can take up to 500 years to disappear. The Mediterranean Sea is particularly vulnerable to plastic pollution because of its semi-enclosed geographical location, and the intensity of its maritime transport, fishing, industry, and tourism. With more than 3000 billion microplastic particles estimated to be in its waters, the Mediterranean is the most polluted sea in the world” (see NPL page 33/left column/Text Box 9). NPL discloses that plastics are formed from fossil fuels, which is also used in the production of coal, oil and gas (see NPL page 9/ left column/3rd paragraph; page 12/right column/continuing paragraph); and “Microplastics degrade in the marine environment at varying rates depending on the core material and weathering conditions. Some petroleum-based plastics can take hundreds of years to degrade, although under some circumstances photochemical degradation can be significant” (see NPL page 10/left column/1st full paragraph).
NPL is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water pollution; ,monitoring oil/petroleum, plastic and microplastic pollution in aquatic environments; and analyzing the impact of pollution, including plastic, microplastic and oil/petroleum, on aquatic environment, marine animals, and humans.
NPL discloses plastic, microplastics and nanoplastics are ubiquitous in aquatic environments globally. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method and composition of US 602 on the aquatic environment containing pollutants, such as oil/petroleum, plastic and microplastic pollutants, as disclosed in NPL, because it would assist with the removal of a pollutant from the aquatic environment.
NPL discloses plastic, microplastics and nanoplastics are ubiquitous in aquatic environments globally. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method and composition of US 602 on the aquatic environment containing pollutants, such as oil/petroleum, plastic and microplastic pollutants, as disclosed in NPL, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. remove or entrap a pollutant from an aquatic environment. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
As established above, plastic, microplastics and nanoplastics are ubiquitous in aquatic environments globally, as disclosed by NPL. Hence, the application of the method and composition of US 602 to an aquatic environment, as disclosed in NPL, will necessarily result in entrapping substantially all microplastic particles. The material(s) and step(s) of US 602 in view of NPL appears to be substantially identical to the claimed materials and steps and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Hence, US 602 in view of NPL is deemed to disclose a method of removing microplastic particles from a water-based liquid, comprising exposing the liquid to a solid surface on which is retained sorbitan monooleate surfactant, wherein the sorbitan monooleate is present in a concentration suitable for entrapping microplastic particles.
Regarding claim 2, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 602 in view of NPL discloses in which the microparticles have a maximum dimension of 5mm (see NPL page 9/right column, 2nd -3rd full paragraphs).
Regarding claim 3, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Further, US 602 in view of NPL discloses microparticles have a size range of 1-100 microns (see NPL page 9/right column, 3rd full paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 2.
US 602 in view of NPL does not disclose the microparticles have an aspect ratio of 0.2 maximum.
However, US 602 in view of NPL discloses that plastics in the aquatic environment undergo weathered, mechanical abrasion and photodegradation to break the plastics into smaller particles, such as “microplastics (<5 mm in diameter) and still smaller particles termed nanoplastics (<1μm in diameter; defined as <100 nm by some authors) [105–107]. The size distribution of ocean microplastics is highly skewed, with increasing numbers of particles at smaller particle sizes” (see NPL page 9/right column/2nd full paragraph). Thus, at least one or more of the microplastic particles will have an aspect ratio of 0.2 maximum.
Regarding claim 5, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 602 in view of NPL discloses microparticles at least partially comprise synthetic organic polymer (see NPL page 9/left column/3rd paragraph; page 9/right column/3rd paragraph; page 10/right column/1st paragraph; page 37/left column/section 7).
Regarding claim 6, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 602 in view of NPL discloses microparticles are completely synthetic organic polymer (see rejection of claim 5; see NPL page 9/left column/3rd paragraph; page 9/right column/3rd paragraph; page 10/right column/1st paragraph; page 37/left column/section 7).
Regarding claim 8, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the microplastic particles are microfibres (see NPL page 10/left to right column/ Marine Pollution by Plastic Microfibers and Tire-Wear Particles section).
Regarding claim 16 and claim 17, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the microparticles have a size range of 5-50 microns, as recited in claim 16, and discloses the microparticles have a size range of 5-30 microns, as recited in claim 17 (see NPL page 9/Marine Pollution by Plastic Microparticles section).
NPL discloses that the microplastic particles may range in sizes from <5 mm in diameter to <1μm in diameter and as small as <100 nm (see NPL page 9/right column/2nd to last paragraph). Hence, NPL discloses a size range of 5-50 microns, as recited in claim 16, and a size range of 5-30 microns, as recited in claim 17, which would overlap the ranges of <5 mm in diameter to <100 nm.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 602 in view of NPL as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of N. B. Hartmann, T. Hüffer, R. C. Thompson, M. Hassellöv, A. Verschoor, A. E. Daugaard, S. Rist, T. Karlsson, N. Brennholt, M. Cole, M. P. Herrling, M. C. Hess, N. P. Ivleva, A. L. Lusher and M. Wagner, Are We Speaking the Same Language? Recommendations for a Definition and Categorization Framework for Plastic Debris, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2019, 53, 1039–1047 (hereinafter Hartmann).
Regarding claim 4, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Further, US 602 in view of NPL does not disclose the microparticles have an aspect ratio of 0.2 maximum.
Hartmann discloses plastic litter, including microplastics and nanoplastics, in various global environments, including aquatic areas, and the need for a consistent framework for discussing plastic litter, such as “size classes, our framework includes physicochemical properties (polymer composition, solid state, solubility) as defining criteria and size, shape, color, and origin” (see Hartmann abstract). Hartmann discloses “Plastics that are significantly longer in one than wide in two dimensions (length-to-diameter ratio) are commonly (and interchangeably) described as fibers or filaments, with both terms describing thread-like structures” (see Hartmann page 1044, right column, 1st full paragraph). Hartmann discloses that plastic particles length can range from sizes in the nanometer scale (1−1000 nm), microplastics would have sizes of 1−1000 μm, milliplastics (1−10 mm), centiplastics (1−10 cm), and deciplastics (1−10 dm) (see Hartmann page 1043, right column, last two paragraphs). Hartmann discloses the diameter of microplastics are known to be approximately 20 microns (see Hartmann page 1040, 1st full paragraph) as well as being proposed to be less than 5 mm (see Hartman page 1040, 1st full paragraph).
Hartmann is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. plastic pollution and evaluating/monitoring plastic and microplastic pollution in aquatic environments.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method and composition of US 602 in view of NPL on the aquatic environment containing plastic contaminants, as disclosed in Hartmann, wherein the microplastic may have a length sizes of 1−1000 μm and diameter size of 20 microns, which yields an aspect ratio of 0.2 to 200, because it would assist with the removal of a pollutant from the aquatic environment.
NPL discloses plastic, microplastics and nanoplastics are ubiquitous in aquatic environments globally. Hartmann establishes that the aspect ratio of microplastics can range from 0.05-50 (1-1,000 micron length and20 micron diameter). Hence, the aquatic environment, as disclosed in NPL, would necessarily comprise microplastics having an aspect ratio of 0.05-50, as disclosed in Hartmann, and thus, overlaps the aspect ratio limitation of claim 4.
“There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 602 in view of NPL as applied to claims 1 and 3, respectively above, and further in view of GESAMP, G., 2019. Guidelines for the monitoring and assessment of plastic litter in the ocean. Journal series GESAMP Reports and Studies, 99, p.130 (GESAMP).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 6, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1 and claim 3, respectively. Further, US 602 in view of NPL does not disclose the microparticles at least partially comprise synthetic organic polymer, as recited in claim 5, and does not disclose the microparticles are completely synthetic organic polymer, as disclosed in claim 6.
GESAMP discloses programs to monitor and assess the presence of plastic litter in the ocean (see GESAMP page 2/section 1.1). GESAMP plastic is a synthetic organic polymer (see GESAMP pages 5-7 and Tables 2.1-2.2).
GESAMP is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. plastic pollution in water and monitoring plastic and microplastic pollution in aquatic environments.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method and composition of US 602 in view of NPL to remove plastic/microplastic pollutants, such as plastics/microplastics formed from synthetic organic polymers, from an aquatic environment, like the ocean, as disclosed in GESAMP, because it would assist with the removal of a pollutant from the aquatic environment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method and composition of US 602 in view of NPL to remove plastic/microplastic pollutants, such as plastics/microplastics formed from synthetic organic polymers, from an aquatic environment, like the ocean, as disclosed in GESAMP, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. remove or entrap a pollutant from an aquatic environment. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
The application of the method and composition of US 602 to an aquatic environment, as disclosed in GESAMP, will necessarily result entrapping substantially all microplastic particles, wherein the microparticles are completely synthetic organic polymer. The material(s) and step(s) of US 602 in view of NPL and GESAMP appears to be substantially identical to the claimed materials and steps and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 7, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 5. Further, US 602 in view of NPL discloses the polymer is selected from the group consisting of polyester, acrylic, polyalkylene, polyamide, polyurethane, and PET, and combinations thereof (see rejection of claims 5 and 6; see also GESAMP pages 5-7 and Tables 2.1-2.2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed May 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner's remarks to Applicants' arguments are represented below.
In the response, it was argued that US 602 does not anticipate nor render obvious the presently claimed solid surface on which is retained sorbitan monooleate because the sorbitan monooleate is a film-forming agent that will spread over the surface of the water to form a monomolecular or duplex film (see Response page 4). Applicant argued that the US 602 is an “entirely different technology from that of the presently claimed method which entraps microplastics on a solid surface on which is retained sorbitan monooleate” (see Response page 4).
This argument is deemed unpersuasive as it is not commensurate in scope with Applicant’s claim language. Independent claim 1 recites “exposing the liquid to a solid surface on which is retained sorbitan monooleate surfactant”. US 602 discloses a chemical compound comprising a contaminant-reducing agent/film-forming agent, such as sorbitan monooleate, and a superabsorbent solid organic polymer, wherein the sorbitan monooleate is impregnated into the superabsorbent polymer (see US 602 col 3 lines 33-38; col 3 lines 57-61; col 5 line 65 – col 6 line 2, col 11 lines 15-37) is exposed to water (see US 602 claims 1, 6 & 7). US 602 discloses that the slow or controlled release of contaminant-reducing agent/film-forming agent is evidence that sorbitan monooleate is retained on the solid absorbent surface during exposure to contaminated aqueous liquid.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights