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 July 09, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 are amended. Claims 2-7, 10-15, and 17 remain in their previously presented form. Claim 23 is newly added.
Response to Amendments
The Amendments to the Claims filed 07/09/2026 have been entered.
Applicant amended the specification and claims to replace “reox” with reoxygenation. The terminology is acknowledged, and the corresponding objection is withdrawn.
Applicant also deleted previously recited preferred subranges from claims 8, 9,16, 18,19, 20, and 21. The remaining operative limitations are therefore considered in the modified rejections below.
Upon reconsideration of the disclosure and Applicant’s explanation, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) directed solely to the phrase “substantially free of solids” is withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1-22 do not necessitate a materially different prior-art ground of rejections. The previously presented 103 rejections are therefore maintained, with modifications limited to conforming rejections to the amended claim language for claims (i.e., claims 8, 9,16, 18,19, 20 and 21). Newly added claim 23 is rejected for the first time as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicants Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to the Claims both filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered.
It is noted that claim 1, 21 and 22, as independent claims, have been amended to recite “directing the water, substantially free of solids, from the solids-liquid separator toa downstream second biological reoxygenation reactor operated under aerobic conditions”; and “in the second biological reoxygenation reactor oxidizing the water in the presence of air and removing most of the residual carbon source, and oxidizing most remaining selenium species in the water, including organo-selenium, to selenium +6 species,” for claim 1; “ directing the water, substantially free of solids, from the solids-liquid separator to a downstream second biological reoxygenation reactor operated under aerobic conditions” and “determining the amount of NOx expressed as mass of NOx as N per unit time introduced into the first biological reactor; and varying the dosage of the amount of the carbon source introduced into the first biological reactor so as to maintain a COD to NOx ratio of 6 to 15,” for claim 21; and “directing the water, substantially free of solids, from the solids-liquid separator to a downstream second biological reoxygenation reactor operated under aerobic conditions,” for claim 22. Furthermore, claims 8, 9, 16, 18, 19, and 20, as dependent claims, have been amended to recite:
Claim 8: The process of claim 7 wherein the sludge is aged approximately one to 12 hours, through recycling and after the sludge is aged, the sludge is wasted.
Claim 9: The process of claim 1 including minimizing or reducing the formation of elemental selenium, selenium -2 and organo-selenium by varying the amount of the carbon source added to the water in the first biological reactor so as to maintain a ratio of COD, expressed as mass of COD per unit time, to NOx, expressed as mass of NOx as N per unit time, fed to the first biological reactor at 6 to 15.
Claim 16: The process of claim 1 wherein the dosage of the carbon source is, less preferably, adjusted by keeping the redox potential in the first biological reactor between -100 and +80 mV compared to a standard hydrogen electrode.
Claim 18: The process of claim 17 wherein the coagulant dosage varies between 10 and 200 mg Fe/L or 5 or 100 mg AI/L.
Claim 19: The process of claim 1 wherein in the case the coagulant is ferric iron, the pH is maintained between 4 and 9, wherein in the case the coagulant is aluminum the pH is maintained between 3 and 8.
Claim 20: The process of claim 1 where oxidation in the second biological reactor is allowed to proceed until the residual soluble COD in the second biological reactor is between 2 and 50 mg/L.
Applicant argues that merely identifying Syed et al., (US 2019/0144318 A1, hereinafter as
“Syed”) in view of Overman (US 5,993,667 hereinafter as “Overman”), and Gonzalez et al., (US 2019/0177,196 A1, hereinafter as “Gonzalez”) as analogous art does not provide the articulated reason with rational underpinning required for obviousness. (See Remarks, p. 12, section (I), paragraph 1, line 1 thru p. 13, paragraph 2, line 2).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The previously presented rejection relies on Syed for the biological selenium-treatment process and associated downstream treatment operation, Overman for adsorption of Se(=4)/selenite on ferric hydroxide/ferric oxyhydroxide precipitates, and Gonzalez for oxidation of reduced selenium species, including organo-selenium, toward Se(+6).
Therefore, the references are not combined because they occupy the same field. Each reference is relied upon for a particular treatment function directed to selenium species encountered in the treatment process. The rejection therefore contains articulated technical basis for the combination consistent with MPEP 2143.
Applicant argues that Syed seeks further reduction of selenium therefore would not have
modified to preserve Se(+4). (See Remarks, p. 13, section (II), paragraph 1, line 1 thru p. 14, paragraph 2, line 9).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not require that every
selenium species terminate quantitatively at Se(+4). It requires reduction of Se(+6) to Se(+4) and subsequent treatment of water containing Se(+4). Moreover, Syed’s own experiment disclosure demonstrates that substantial dissolved selenite remains downstream of biological treatment. Syed reports that the stream entering downstream flocculation contained substantial selenite, including an average pf approximately 84% of dissolved selenium in the cited test results.
Therefore, the rejection does not require reconstructing Syed so that its reduction pathway affirmatively terminates at Se(+4); Syed itself demonstrates the availability of downstream Se(+4).
Applicant argues that Overman relies on refinery wastewater, permanganate oxidation,
acidic conditions, and chemistry are different from Syed’s biological reduction process. (See Remarks, p. 14, section (II), paragraph 1, line 10 thru p. 15, paragraph 2, line 9).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not bodily incorporate Overman’s complete refinery-treatment process or potassium-permanganate oxidation stage into Syed. Overman is relied upon for the narrower teaching that ferric salts form ferric hydroxide/ferric oxyhydroxide precipitates onto which Se(+4)/selenite can be adsorbed. Syed already employs ferric treatment of selenium-containing water downstream of the biological treatment.
Therefore, the relied-upon Overman teaching is directed to the adsorption function of the ferric precipitate rather than wholesale substitution of Overman’s process for Syed’s process. See MPEP 2145.
Applicant argues that selenium in Syed would instead be incorporated into biomass or
reduced further to elemental selenium. (See Remarks, p. 16, section (II), paragraph 3, line 1 thru p. 17, paragraph 1, line 12).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Syed’s own results establish that dissolved selenite remains available for downstream treatment.
Therefore, the premise that no Se(+4) remains for ferric adsorption is inconsistent with Syed’s experimental results.
Applicant argues that Overman’s acidic treatment conditions and permanganate chemistry
would adversely affect Syed’s microorganisms. (See Remarks, p. 15, section (II), paragraph 3, line 1 thru p. 16, paragraph 1, line 7).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees, and the argument does not address the modification relied upon. The rejection does not require operating Syed’s biological reactor at Overman’s ferric-treatment pH and does not require introduction of permanganate into Syed’s biological reactor. Overman is relied upon for the ferric-precipitate/selenite adsorption teaching.
Therefore, the asserted pH and permanganate incompatibility do not address the modification relied upon.
Applicant argues that Gonzalez employes advance oxidation process (AOP) rather than
biological oxidation. (See Remarks, p. 17, section (III), paragraph 1, line 1 thru p. 19, paragraph 1, line 2).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rely upon Gonzalez teaching biological selenium-oxidation mechanisms. Gonzalez is relied upon for its teaching for oxidation of residual reduced selenium species, including organo-selenium, toward Se(+6). Syed supplied the downstream aerobic biological treatment and residual-organic-carbon-removal.
Therefore, Gonzalez is relied upon for its selenium-oxidation teaching, not as individually teaching the biological character of Syed’s downstream reactor.
Applicant argues that ozone or peroxide would be harmful to Syed’s
microorganisms/microbial activity. (See Remarks, p. 19, section (III), paragraph 2, lines 1-8).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not require Syed’s upstream selenium-reducing microorganisms to Gonzalez’s AOP reagents. Gonzalez is relied upon for the downstream selenium-oxidation teaching
Therefore, the asserted toxicity to Syed’s upstream reducing microorganisms does not defeat the particular modification relied upon.
Applicant argues that the claimed second biological reactor simultaneously removes
residual carbon and oxidizes organo-selenium toward Se(+6), whereas Gonzalez does not perform those functions biologically. (See Remarks, p. 19, section (III), paragraph 3, line 1 thru p. 20, paragraph 1, line 7).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees that one reference must individually supply the complete limitation. Syed teaches downstream aerobic biological treatment and removal of residual organic carbon. Gonzalez supplies the relied upon teaching concerning oxidation of residual selenium toward Se(+6). Gonzalez is not relied upon as a teaching that its AOP is itself a biological reactor. The biological reactor properties and residual-carbon-removal function are supplied by Syed.
Therefore, the Applicant’s separate consideration of the references does not overcome the rejection based upon their combined teachings.
Applicant argues that the proposed combination would merely produce Syed’s biological
reduction reactor, Overman’s ferric/permanganate CSTR, and Gonzalez’s AOP rather than the claimed integrated sequence. (See Remarks, p. 19, section (III), paragraph 4, line 1 thru p. 20, paragraph 3, line 7).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not bodily incorporate the complete apparatus of each secondary reference. Syed supplies the principal biological treatment architecture; Overman supplies the particular ferric-selenite adsorption teaching; and Gonzalez supplies the particular residual reduced-selenium oxidation teaching.
Applicant’s additional toxicity discussion does not establish on the present record an unexpected result commensurate with the scope of the claims sufficient to overcome the prima facie case.
Therefore, the Applicant’s characterization of the combination as requiring wholesale incorporation of Overman and Gonzalez does not correspond to the modification relied upon.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified/new ground of rejections to 1, 8, 9, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are presented, in view of the previously presented prior art(s), Syed et al., (US 2019/0144318 A1, hereinafter as “Syed”) in view of Overman (US 5,993,667 hereinafter as “Overman”), and Gonzalez et al., (US 2019/0177,196 A1, hereinafter as “Gonzalez”), 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, 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, 10-14, 16-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Syed et al., (US 2019/0144318 A1, hereinafter as “Syed”) in view of Overman (US 5,993,667 hereinafter as “Overman”), and Gonzalez et al., (US 2019/0177,196 A1, hereinafter as “Gonzalez”).
Regarding claim 1, Syed teaches a selenium-removal process using biological, chemical, and membrane treatment. Syed discloses a process for removing selenium from water comprising:
directing the water 12 containing selenium into a first bioreactor 16 (i.e., biological reactor, Fig. 1, ¶ [0028]) with nutrients 18 added to support growth of selenium-reducing microorganisms (i.e., refers to biomass) (Fig. 1, ¶ [0028]);
maintaining the water 12 and biomass (i.e., microorganisms in biological reactor tank) under anoxic or anaerobic conditions in the first bioreactor tank 16 (Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]);
in the first bioreactor tank 16, the contained nutrients 18 may include a carbon source (i.e., mixing a carbon source) and that the nutrient feed rate may be adjusted to achieve a target oxygen reduction potential (ORP) in the bioreactor tank 16 (Fig. 1, ¶ [0028]) and biologically reducing selenate (i.e., selenium +6 species) to selenite (i.e., selenium +4 species) while at least some of the selenium is incorporated into the biomass ¶ [0012-0015]);
directing the water containing the selenium +4 species 26 (mixed liquor, Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]) from the bioreactor tank 16 and at least some of the biomass from the first bioreactor 16 to a downstream precipitation reactor (aeration tank 30 added with coagulant 28; Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]);
mixing coagulant 28 (i.e., ferric chloride) with the water (i.e., mixed liquor 26) in the precipitation reactor (i.e., aeration tank 30, Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]) and causing solids having surface complexation binding sites to be precipitated from the water (¶ [0018]);
directing the treated water containing the solids having the adsorbed selenium +4 species and the biomass (biologically treated effluent water 38, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) to a solids-liquid separator (membrane tank 40, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) and separating the water (permeate 46 Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) from the solids having adsorbed selenium +4 species and the biomass (waste activated sludge WAS 64, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]);
directing the water (permeate 46 Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]), substantially free of solids, from the solids-liquid separator (membrane tank 40, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) downstream second biological redox reactor (bioreactor 75 maybe a bioreactor tank 16 as describe above; Fig. 3, ¶ [0035]) operated under anaerobic conditions (¶ [0035]) but mentions that effluent from anoxic or anaerobic reactor can be treated further (i.e., second biological reactor) in an aerobic reactor to remove residual organic compounds (i.e., most of the residual carbon source) in the water to control the ORP in an upstream reactor (¶ [0016]). The amended reox terminology identifies this downstream aerobic biological treatment as the second biological “reoxygenation” reactor.
But Syed does not teach:
(I) the precipitation reactor, adsorbing selenium +4 species onto the complexation binding sites of the solids;
(II) oxidizing most of the remaining selenium species in the water, including organo-selenium, to selenium +6 species.
However, Overman teaches a method of removing dissolved selenium from a variety of refinery process water and wastewater Streams (Abstract).
(I) Overman discloses that missing selenium +4 adsorption feature because Overman discloses oxidizing selenium compounds to selenite ions (selenium +4 ) in a stirred tank reactor, which are adsorbed on ferric hydroxide or similar insoluble materials, and teaches that ferric sulfate or another soluble ferric salt produces ferric hydroxide and ferric oxyhydroxide precipitation (ferric treatment, col. 2, lines 40-46), corresponding to the limitation “adsorbing selenium +4 species onto the complexation binding sites of the solids”;
(II) Gonzalez teaches a process for treating mine impacted water containing one or more reduced selenium species by advanced oxidation process (AOP) to oxidize selenium species, including organo-selenium, to selenate (+6) or selenium +6 species (Abstract; ¶ [0023-0024]).
Syed, Overman, and Gonzalez are analogous because each reference is directed to treatment and removal of selenium species from water or wastewater using biological, chemical, adsorption, oxidation, and/or related water-treatment processes relevant to selenium species conversion and removal.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the selenium treatment process taught by Syed that discloses a selenium-removal process using biological, chemical, and membrane treatment and apply the ferric-salt selenite adsorption process taught by Overman that discloses oxidizing selenium compounds to selenite ions (selenium +4 ) in a stirred tank reactor to promote an effective removal of dissolved selenium species from adsorbing selenium ions onto ferric hydroxide/ferric oxyhydroxide precipitates (Overman: ferric treatment, col. 2, lines 40-46).
It would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the oxidation process taught by Gonzalez that discloses a process for treating mine impacted water containing one or more reduced selenium species by advanced oxidation process (AOP) to oxidize selenium species, including organo-selenium, to selenate (+6) or selenium +6 species (Abstract; ¶ [0023-0024]) to Syed’s downstream polishing stage because the advanced oxidation process taught by Gonzalez effectively oxidizes selenium and organo-selenium species to Se (+6) selenate, the least bioavailability dissolved selenium form, decreasing selenium bioavailability of the treated water (Gonzalez: ¶ [0014-0015]).
In regard to claim 2, Syed discloses that oxygen reduction potential (ORP) may be in the process bioreactor to provide controlled biological selenium reduction at least one zone suitable for the reduction of soluble selenium species such as selenate or selenite to elemental selenium (¶ [0012]).
In regard to claim 3, Syed discloses the coagulant 28 (Fig. 1, ¶ [0029] is an iron chloride (i.e., FeCl3; (¶ [0019]) wherein the solids onto which the selenium +4 species is absorbed is formed by mixing the iron salt with the water in the precipitation reactor (aeration tank 30 with mechanical mixer 30 (Syed: Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]; Overman, col. 2, lines 40-45), and wherein the addition of the ferric salt forms the surface complexation binding sites as ferric hydroxide and ferric oxyhydroxide onto which the selenium +4 species are adsorbed (Overman, col. 2, lines 40-45).
In regard to claim 4, Syed discloses a membrane tank 40 with immersed membrane module 42 (Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]), including microfiltration/ultrafiltration type separation (Fig. 1; ¶ [0017]). Overman also discloses separating selenium-containing solids by centrifugation (col. 2, lines 50-52).
In regard to claims 5 and 6, claim 5 recites controlling reduction of Se (+6) to Se (+4) species by varying dosage of carbon source while claim 6 recites controlling dosage to meet a target residual COD or redox potential. Syed discloses adding nutrients including a carbon source and adjusting nutrient feed rate to achieve target oxygen reduction potential (ORP) or redox potential in bioreactor tank nutrients including a carbon source and adjusting the nutrient feed rate to actives a target ORP in the bioreactor tank 16 (Fig. 1, ¶ [0005]). The reactors may be controlled considering their ORP. Negative ORP is maintained in one or more anoxic or anaerobic zones to provide conditions suitable for reducing soluble selenium species (Syed: ¶ [0005]).
In regard to claim 10, Syed discloses biological treatment in one or more bioreactors by suspended growth, fixed growth on a moving bed, or both (¶ [0005]) and teaches membrane-based treatment (¶ [0010]).
In regard to claim 11, Syed discloses selenium reducing bacteria (SRB) in one or more bioreactors (anoxic or anaerobic reactors) and states that such microorganisms occur in nature, may spontaneously populate the reactor (¶ [0015]).
In regard to claim 12, Syed discloses nutrients including carbon source ¶ [0028]).
In regard to claim 13, Syed discloses that oxygen reduction potential (ORP) may be in the process bioreactor to provide controlled biological selenium reduction at least one zone suitable for the reduction of soluble selenium species such as selenate or selenite to elemental selenium (¶ [0012]). Also, Gonzalez teaches a process for treating mine impacted water containing one or more reduced selenium species by advanced oxidation process (AOP) to oxidize selenium species, including organo-selenium, to selenate (+6), or selenium +6 species (Abstract; ¶ [0023-0024]), thus, Syed and Gonzalez teach control in the reduction of biological reactor to minimize the formation of elemental selenium and organo-selenium species.
In regard to claim 14, Overman discloses adding ferric sulfate or other soluble ferric salt to produce ferric hydroxide/ferric oxyhydroxide precipitates; the pH of the first continuous stirred-tank reactors (CSTR) is automatically controlled by ferric salt injections; selenium is oxidized to selenium +4 (selenite) and adsorbed on ferric hydroxide and manganese dioxide precipitate (Overman: Abstract).
In regard to claim 16, Syed discloses adjustment of nutrient including carbon source in the first biological reaction tank 16 to achieve target ORP (Fig. 1, ¶ [0019]). including -100 to-500 mV. Since the claimed redox potential in the first biological reactor between -100 and +80 overlaps at endpoint the redox potential between -100 to-500 mV (¶ [0019]) taught by Syed, the range recited in claim 16 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to claim 17, Syed discloses ferric chloride coagulant 28 (Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]) and coagulant including alum (i.e., aluminum sulfate) (¶ [0019]).
In regard to claim 18, Syed discloses the 60 mg/L ferric chloride coagulant (Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]) and coagulant dosage of 1 to 100 ppm (mg/L) (¶ [0019]). Since the claimed coagulant dosage range of “10 and 200 mg Fe/L or 5 or 100 mg AI/L, preferably 20 to 100 mg Fe/L or 10 to 50 mg AI/L” overlaps the coagulant dosage of 1 to 100 ppm (mg/L, (¶ [0019]) taught by Syed the range recited in claim 18 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to claim 19, Overman discloses pH control with ferric salt addition and final pH adjustment to approximately 6.0-8.0 (col. 3, lines 35-40). Since the claimed pH range between 4 and 9 overlaps pH range of approximately 6.0-8.0 (col. 3, lines 35-40) taught by Overman, the range recited in claim 19 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to claim 20, Syed discloses that effluent from an anaerobic bioreactor (first bioreactor 16 can be treated further (i.e., second biological reactor) downstream in aerobic treatment, where the aerobic reactor can remove residual organic carbon maintaining the reactors ORP in the range from 100 mV to -100 mV (Fig. 1, ¶ [0016]). Thus, the residual COD is a result-effective measure of the desired carbon-removal result and selection of an effective residual COD endpoint would have been routine optimization of the known aerobic carbon-removal process (¶ [0016]).
In regard to claim 23, Syed in view of Overman, and Gonzalez, as applied to claim 1, further recites controlling carbon-source dosage to the first biological reactor to keep the redox potential between -100 and +80 mV, thereby minimizing or reducing formation of elemental selenium, selenium -2 and organic selenium. Syed teaches that nutrients include a carbon source, that nutrient feed may be adjusted to obtain a target ORP in bioreactor tank 16 (¶ [0028], Fig. 1), and that biological reactor operates at -100 to -500 mV (¶ [0029]. Since the claimed redox potential of -100 and +80 mV range overlaps the redox potential range of -100 to -500 mV taught by Syed, the range recited in claim 23 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Syed in view of Overman, and Gonzalez, and further in view of the evidentiary reference Achal (Springer, 2025, hereinafter as “Achal”)
In regard to claims 7 and 8, Syed discloses solids separated by the solids-liquid separator ( 42 membrane tank, Fig. 1, ¶ [0025]) form a sludge, and wherein the process includes recycling at least a portion of the sludge to the precipitation reactor (aeration tank 30 added with mixed liquor 26 added with coagulant 28 (Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) for to the selenium treatment process [¶ [0025]) enhancing the adsorption of selenium +4 onto the complexation binding sites of the solids (Overman, col. 2, lines 40-45), however the exact 1-12 hours aging period of the sludge recited in claim 8, is not disclosed by Syed, but would have been obvious optimization of a result-effective variable because sludge age or sludge retention time (SRT) is considered a fundamental operational parameter that represents the average time that activated sludge microorganism remain in the system, directly influencing biomass concentration, substrate degradation rates, and sludge settleability and is controlled by sludge wasting and recycle, making it a more powerful tool for optimizing bioreactor performance as evidenced by Achal (Springer, 2025, 7.6.3 Mass Balance on Biomass (X) p. 97, second paragraph, lines 3-8).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Syed in view of Overman, and Gonzalez, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Dale et al., (Proceedings of Mine Water Solutions in Extreme Environments, 2015, hereinafter as “Dale”).
Regarding claim 9, Syed teaches nitrate removal through denitrification (¶ [0013]) and carbon-nutrient dosing in an anoxic bioreactor (¶ [0016]) to control selenate and selenite reduction but does not teach ratio of COD and NOx.
Dale teaches a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) to remove both nitrate and selenate (Abstract, p.1). Dale discloses selenium/nitrate MBBP treatment, states that some selenium reducers preferentially use nitrate as electron acceptor when nitrate is available and states that nitrate must be completely reduced to achieve complete selenium reduction available (p. 11, Selenium Removal section, first paragraph, lines 3-5). Dale further states that residual available carbon is an important parameter, so the reaction is not substrate limited (p. 11, Selenium Removal section, second paragraph, lines 1-2). Dale discloses Total COD concentration of 5 mg/L and < 20/mg/L (Table 3, Mine effluent water characteristics, p. 7) and residual N-NOx of 0.5 mg/L (p. 11, Selenium Removal section, first paragraph, lines 1-2), resulting to 10 and <40 which overlaps with the claimed ratio range of 6-15.
Dale is also analogous to Syed, Overman, Gonzalez because Dale is also directed to treatment and removal of selenium species from water or wastewater using biological, chemical, adsorption, oxidation, and/or related water-treatment processes relevant to selenium species conversion and removal.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the selenium removal treatment process taught by Syed that discloses nitrate removal through denitrification (¶ [0013]) and carbon-nutrient dosing in an anoxic bioreactor (¶ [0016]) with the COD/NOx ratio taught by Dale that discloses the use of moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) to remove both nitrate and selenate (Abstract, p.1) and COD concentrations in the MBBR tank, because careful control of carbon source dosing is required to maintain target concentration level of selenium concentrations (i.e., selenate, selenite, elemental selenium), thereby allowing control in the formation of elemental selenium. (Dale: Conclusion section, p. 16, lines 11-12).
In regard to claim 15, Syed discloses carbon-source dosing and feed rate adjustment to achieve target ORP in the first bioreactor tank 16 (Fig. 1, (¶ [0028]) but does not teach claimed COD concentration. Dale discloses residual COD as Total COD concentration of 5 mg/L and < 20/mg/L (Table 3, Mine effluent water characteristics and residual N-NOx of 0.5 mg/L ((p. 11, Selenium Removal section, first paragraph, lines 1-2), resulting to 10 and <40 (Table 3, Mine effluent water characteristics, p. 7) which is proximate with the claimed COD range of 20-200 mg/L. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have optimized Syed’s COD range to have it between 20-200 mg/L, as suggested by Dale because maintaining residual COD within 20-200 mg/L to maintain the low selenium concentrations without excessive sulfide generation which can cause potential toxicity for H2S gas release (Dale: Conclusion section, p. 16, lines 11-12) and also to avoid substrate limitation since biological treatment of selenate and selenite requires anoxic conditions and the presence of an electron donor, usually an organic carbon compound (Dale, p. 2, third paragraph, lines 12-13).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Syed in view of Overman, Gonzalez and Dale.
Regarding claim 21, Syed teaches a selenium-removal process using biological, chemical, and membrane treatment. Syed discloses a process for removing selenium from water comprising:
directing water 12 containing selenium into a first biological reactor 16 with nutrients 18 added to support growth of selenium-reducing microorganisms (i.e., refers to biomass) (Fig. 1, ¶ [0028]);
maintaining the water 12 and biomass (i.e., microorganisms in biological reactor tank) under anoxic or anaerobic conditions in the first bioreactor tank 16 (i.e., biological reactor) (Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]);
in the first bioreactor tank 16, the contained nutrients 18 may include a carbon source (i.e., mixing a carbon source) and that the nutrient feed rate may be adjusted to achieve a target oxygen reduction potential (ORP) in the bioreactor tank 16 (Fig. 1, ¶ [0028]) and biologically reducing selenate (i.e., selenium +6 species) to selenite (i.e., selenium +4 species) while at least some of the selenium is incorporated into the biomass ¶ [0012-0015]);
directing the water containing the selenium +4 species 26 (mixed liquor, Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]) from the bioreactor tank 16 and at least some of the biomass from the first bioreactor 16 to a downstream precipitation reactor (aeration tank 30 added with coagulant 28; Fig. 1 ¶ [0029]);
mixing coagulant 28 (i.e., ferric chloride) with the water (i.e., mixed liquor 26) in the precipitation reactor (i.e., aeration tank 30, Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]) and causing solids having surface complexation binding sites to be precipitated from the water (¶ [0018]);
directing the treated water containing the solids having the adsorbed selenium +4 species and the biomass (biologically treated effluent water 38, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) to a solids-liquid separator (membrane tank 40, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) and separating the water (permeate 46 Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) from the solids having adsorbed selenium +4 species and the biomass (waste activated sludge WAS 64, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]);
directing the water (permeate 46 Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]), substantially free of solids, from the solids-liquid separator (membrane tank 40, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) downstream second biological redox reactor (bioreactor 75 maybe a bioreactor tank 16 as describe above; Fig. 3, ¶ [0035]) operated under anaerobic conditions (¶ [0035]) but mentions that effluent from anoxic or anaerobic reactor can be treated further (i.e., second biological reactor) in an aerobic reactor to remove residual organic compounds (i.e., most of the residual carbon source) in the water to control the ORP in an upstream reactor (¶ [0016]). The amended reox terminology identifies this downstream aerobic biological treatment as the second biological “reoxygenation” reactor.
But Syed does not teach:
(I) the precipitation reactor, adsorbing selenium +4 species onto the complexation binding sites of the solids;
(II) oxidizing most of the remaining selenium species in the water, including organo-selenium, to selenium +6 species;
(III) minimizing or reducing the formation of elemental selenium, selenium -2 or organo-selenium by:
(a) determining the amount of COD expressed as mass of COD per unit time introduced into the first biological reactor;
(b) determining the amount of NOx expressed as mass of NOx as N per unit time introduced into the first biological reactor; and
(c) varying the dosage of the amount of the carbon source introduced into the first biological reactor so as to maintain a COD to NOx ratio of 6 to 15, preferably 8 to 12.
However, Overman teaches a method of removing dissolved selenium from a variety of refinery process water and wastewater Streams (Abstract).
(I) Overman discloses that missing selenium +4 adsorption feature because Overman discloses oxidizing selenium compounds to selenite ions (selenium +4 ) in a stirred tank reactor, which are adsorbed on ferric hydroxide or similar insoluble materials, and teaches that ferric sulfate or another soluble ferric salt produces ferric hydroxide and ferric oxyhydroxide precipitation (ferric treatment, col. 2, lines 40-46), corresponding to the limitation “adsorbing selenium +4 species onto the complexation binding sites of the solids”;
(II) Gonzalez teaches a process for treating mine impacted water containing one or more reduced selenium species by advanced oxidation process (AOP) to oxidize selenium species, including organoselenium, to selenate (+6) or selenium +6 species (Abstract; ¶ [0023-0024]).
Syed, Overman, and Gonzalez are analogous because each reference is directed to treatment and removal of selenium species from water or wastewater using biological, chemical, adsorption, oxidation, and/or related water-treatment processes relevant to selenium species conversion and removal.
(III) Dale teaches a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) to remove both nitrate and selenate (Abstract, p.1) and also teaches control of COD and NOx in the formation of elemental selenium (Conclusion section, p. 16, lines 1-12), by:
(a) determining the amount of COD expressed as mass of COD per unit time introduced into the reactor (Fig. 8, Soluble COD (mg/L) profile across MBBR system over time, p. 12);
(b) determining the amount of NOx expressed as mass of NOx as N per unit time introduced into the reactor (Fig. 7, NOx (mg/L) profile across MBBR system over time, p.11); and
(c) varying the dosage of the amount of the carbon source introduced into the MBBR reactor so as to maintain a COD to NOx ratio of 10 to <40 (total COD concentration of 5 mg/L and < 20/mg/L (Table 3, Mine effluent water characteristics, p. 7) and residual N-NOx of 0.5 mg/L (p. 11, Selenium Removal section, first paragraph, lines 1-2), resulting to 10 and <40 ratio) overlapping the claimed limitation COD to NOx ration of 6 to 15.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the selenium removal treatment process of Syed that teaches a selenium-removal process using biological, chemical, and membrane treatment with the ferric-salt selenite adsorption process taught by Overman that discloses oxidizing selenium compounds to selenite ions (selenium +4 ) reaction in a stirred tank reactor in order to promote an effective removal of dissolved selenium species from adsorbing selenium ions onto ferric hydroxide/ferric oxyhydroxide precipitates (Overman: ferric treatment, col. 2, lines 40-46).
It would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the oxidation taught by Gonzalez that discloses a process for treating mine impacted water containing one or more reduced selenium species by advanced oxidation process (AOP) to oxidize selenium species to Syed’s downstream polishing stage because the advanced oxidation process taught by Gonzalez effectively oxidizes selenium and organo-selenium species to Se (+6) selenate, the least bioavailability dissolved selenium form, decreasing selenium bioavailability of the treated water (Gonzalez: ¶ [0014-0015]).
It would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply carbon dosing and denitrification taught by Dale that discloses a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) to remove both nitrate and selenate (Abstract, p.1) and also teaches control of COD and NOx in the formation of elemental selenium (Conclusion section, p. 16, lines 1-12) to Syed’s downstream polishing stage because careful control of carbon source dosing is required to maintain concentration level of selenium concentrations (i.e., selenate, selenite, elemental selenium), thereby allowing control in the formation of elemental selenium (Dale: Conclusion section, p. 16, lines 11-12).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Syed in view of Overman, Gonzalez and Dale.
Regarding claim 22, Syed teaches a selenium-removal process using biological, chemical, and membrane treatment. Syed discloses a process for removing selenium from water comprising:
directing the water 12 containing selenium into a first biological reactor 16 with nutrients 18 added to support growth of selenium-reducing microorganisms (i.e., refers to biomass) (Fig. 1, ¶ [0028]);
maintaining the water 12 and biomass (i.e., microorganisms in biological reactor tank) under anoxic or anaerobic conditions in the first bioreactor tank 16 (i.e., biological reactor) (Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]);
in the first bioreactor tank 16, the contained nutrients 18 may include a carbon source (i.e., mixing a carbon source) and that the nutrient feed rate may be adjusted to achieve a target oxygen reduction potential (ORP) in the bioreactor tank 16 (Fig. 1, ¶ [0028]) and biologically reducing selenate (i.e., selenium +6 species) to selenite (i.e., selenium +4 species) while at least some of the selenium is incorporated into the biomass ¶ [0012-0015]);
directing the water containing the selenium +4 species 26 (mixed liquor, Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]) from the bioreactor tank 16 and at least some of the biomass from the first bioreactor 16 to a downstream precipitation reactor (aeration tank 30 added with coagulant 28; Fig. 1 ¶ [0029]);
mixing coagulant 28 (i.e., ferric chloride) with the water (i.e., mixed liquor 26) in the precipitation reactor (i.e., aeration tank 30, Fig. 1, ¶ [0029]) and causing solids having surface complexation binding sites to be precipitated from the water ¶ [0018];
directing the treated water containing the solids having the adsorbed selenium +4 species and the biomass (biologically treated effluent water 38, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) to a solids-liquid separator (membrane tank 40, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) and separating the water (permeate 46 Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) from the solids having adsorbed selenium +4 species and the biomass (waste activated sludge WAS 64, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]);
directing the water (permeate 46 Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]), substantially free of solids, from the solids-liquid separator (membrane tank 40, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) downstream second biological redox reactor (bioreactor 75 maybe a bioreactor tank 16 as describe above; Fig. 3, ¶ [0035]) operated under anaerobic conditions (¶ [0035]) but mentions that effluent from anoxic or anaerobic reactor can be treated further (i.e., second biological reactor) in an aerobic reactor to remove residual organic compounds (i.e., most of the residual carbon source) in the water to control the ORP in an upstream reactor (¶ [0016]). The amended reox terminology identifies this downstream aerobic biological treatment as the second biological “reoxygenation” reactor.
But Syed does not teach:
(I) the precipitation reactor, adsorbing selenium +4 species onto the complexation binding sites of the solids;
(II) oxidizing most of the remaining selenium species in the water, including organo-selenium, to selenium +6 species;
(III) minimizing or reducing the formation of elemental selenium, selenium -2 or organo-selenium by:
(a) determining the residual COD concentration in the first biological reactor; and
(b) varying the dosage of the carbon source introduced into the first biological
reactor to maintain the residual COD concentration in the first biological reactor between
20 and 200 mg/L.
However, Overman teaches a method of removing dissolved selenium from a variety of refinery process water and wastewater Streams (Abstract).
(I) Overman discloses that missing selenium +4 adsorption feature because Overman discloses oxidizing selenium compounds to selenite ions (selenium +4 ) in a stirred tank reactor, which are adsorbed on ferric hydroxide or similar insoluble materials, and teaches that ferric sulfate or another soluble ferric salt produces ferric hydroxide and ferric oxyhydroxide precipitation (ferric treatment, col. 2, lines 40-46), corresponding to the limitation “adsorbing selenium +4 species onto the complexation binding sites of the solids;”
(II) Gonzalez teaches a process for treating mine impacted water containing one or more reduced selenium species by advanced oxidation process (AOP) to oxidize selenium species, including organo-selenium, to selenate (+6) or selenium +6 species (Abstract; ¶ [0023-0024]);
(III) Dale teaches a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) to remove both nitrate and selenate (Abstract, p.1) and also teaches control of COD and NOx in the formation of elemental selenium (Conclusion section, p. 16, lines 1-12), by:
(a) determining the residual COD concentration (total COD of 5 and <20 mg/L in the MBBR reactor, Table 3. Mine effluent water characteristics); and
(b) varying the dosage of the carbon source introduced into the MBBR reactor to maintain the residual COD concentration in the MBBR reactor between 20 and 200 mg/L (dosing of carbon source: p. 10, Nitrogen Removal: Denitrification, first paragraph, lines 1 thru second paragraph line 10; Fig. 8, Soluble COD profile across MBBR system over time).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the selenium treatment process taught by Syed that discloses a selenium-removal process using biological, chemical, and membrane treatment with the ferric-salt selenite adsorption process taught by Overman that discloses oxidizing selenium compounds to selenite ions (selenium +4 ) in a stirred tank reactor to promote an effective removal of dissolved selenium species from adsorbing selenium ions onto ferric hydroxide/ferric oxyhydroxide precipitates (Overman: ferric treatment, col. 2, lines 40-46).
It would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the oxidation process taught by Gonzalez that discloses a process for treating mine impacted water containing one or more reduced selenium species by advanced oxidation process (AOP) to oxidize selenium species to Syed’s downstream polishing stage because the advanced oxidation process taught by Gonzalez effectively oxidizes selenium and organo-selenium species to Se (+6) selenate, the least bioavailability dissolved selenium form, decreasing selenium bioavailability of the treated water (Gonzalez: ¶ [0014-0015]).
It would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary carbon dosage to maintain residual COD in the first biological reactor taught by Dale that discloses a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) to remove both nitrate and selenate (Abstract, p.1) and also teaches control of COD and NOx in the formation of elemental selenium (Conclusion section, p. 16, lines 1-12) to Syed’s downstream polishing stage to avoid substrate limitation since biological treatment of selenate and selenite requires anoxic conditions and the presence of an electron donor, usually an organic carbon compound (Dale, p. 2, third paragraph, lines 12-13).
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 communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
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 processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 processing 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights