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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 24, 2026 has been entered. Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 8. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each 112b and non-statutory double patenting rejection previously set forth in the previous Office Action mailed April 27, 2026. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 and rejections for Non-Statutory Double-Patenting have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of these amendments, a new and/or modified grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. §103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in Remarks filed July 24, 2026 that Filson (US6346195) and Porshnev (WO2008008711) do not teach or suggest the newly recited disposable chemical filtration cartridges and further argues that Porshnev’s regeneration-based system is incompatible with disposable cartridges that are removed rather than regenerated. Applicant’s argument is persuasive with respect to the previously applied combination of Filson and Porshnev alone. The present rejection, however, further relies upon Gemende, which expressly teaches an ion-exchange filter cartridge for treatment of water and wastewater, including heavy-metal removal, identifies the cartridge as particularly suitable as a “disposable filter”, and further teaches combustion of the cartridge after heavy-metal service. Thus, the presently applied combination does not rely upon Filson or Porshnev to disclose the disposable-cartridge limitation. Regarding the argument that modifying Porshnev to employ disposable cartridges would be incompatible with Porshnev’s regeneration infrastructure, the rejection does not require bodily incorporation of Gemende’s cartridge into Porshnev while retaining Porshnev’s regeneration equipment. Rather, Porshnev is relied upon for its teaching of alternating ion-exchange treatment devices in a lead-lag arrangement, while Gemende teaches that ion-exchange treatment may instead be implemented using disposable cartridges having the advantages of simple handling, low equipment complexity, and uncomplicated disposal. Accordingly, the combined teachings provide a reasoned basis for employing disposable ion-exchange cartridges in the lead-lag metal-removal arrangement without requiring retention of the regeneration features that are unnecessary when disposable cartridges are used.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the remaining dependent claims largely rely upon the same asserted deficiency of Filson and Porshnev. Because Gemende is now relied upon to supply the disposable-cartridge teaching, those arguments do not overcome the rejections set forth below.
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 1-2, 7, 9, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filson (US6346195) in view of Porshnev (WO-2008008711-A2) and Gemende (DE-102007003410-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, Filson discloses a chemical capture system for removing metals from a contaminated waste stream (Filson claim 1 "A process for removing metal ions from wastewater"), comprising: (i) a prefiltration stage (Filson claim 1 "passing a wastewater feed containing hydrogen peroxide and metal ions in solution through a carbon bed"), followed by ion-exchange treatment for removal of the metal ions. Thus, Filson teaches treatment of a contaminated metal-containing wastewater stream using an upstream treatment stage followed by ion-exchange metal removal.
Filson, however, does not explicitly disclose a lead-lag system comprising one or more disposable chemical filtration cartridges as one of more filtration devices in either the lead or the lag position, nor does Filson explicitly disclose means for controlling the flow rate of the contaminated waste stream through the chemical capture system.
Porshnev is directed to treatment of metal-containing CMP slurry using ion exchange and teaches the claimed lead-lag and flow-control arrangement. Porshnev discloses passing slurry through a first ion-exchange column while a second ion-exchange column is unavailable for treatment and then using the second column for ion exchange when the first requires regeneration, thereby providing alternating ion-exchange treatment columns corresponding to lead-lag operation (Porshnev ¶[0047], [0050]). Porshnev further discloses a controller 144 and teaches that, during an ion-exchange cycle, the controller operates pumps 146a or 146b to pass slurry through the respective ion-exchange column, thereby providing means for controlling flow through the treatment system (Porshnev ¶[0048-0049]).
Gemende is directed to an ion-exchange filter cartridge for water and wastewater treatment, including removal of dissolved heavy metals. Gemende teaches that ion exchangers were conventionally provided both as loose material for column packing and as “ready-to-use ion exchanger cartridges” (Gemende ¶[0004]). Gemende further expressly teaches use of its ion-exchange filter cartridge for “water treatment and wastewater treatment, especially for the removal of heavy metals” (Gemende ¶[0027]), and teaches that, because of “simple handling”, “low equipment complexity”, and “uncomplicated disposal”, the cartridge is particularly suitable as a “disposable filter” for applications including removal of heavy metals {Gemende ¶[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Filson/Porshnev metal-removal system such that one or more of the ion-exchange filtration devices in the lead-lag arrangement comprise disposable chemical filtration cartridges as taught by Gemende. Filson already teaches removal of metal ions from wastewater using upstream treatment followed by ion exchange, and Porshnev teaches arranging plural ion-exchange treatment devices for alternating lead-lag operation together with controller-operated flow through the devices. Gemende expressly establishes that ion-exchange treatment media were known to be provided in ready-to-use cartridges and further teaches disposable ion-exchange filter cartridges for heavy-metal removal from water and wastewater. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have had reason to employ Gemende’s disposable cartridge form for the ion-exchange filtration devices of the Filson/Porshnev system because Gemende expressly identifies simple handling, reduced equipment complexity, and uncomplicated disposal as advantages of that configuration. Such a modification would amount to use of a known ion-exchange treatment form for its known heavy-metal-removal function within the known lead-lag treatment arrangement, with the predictable result of providing replaceable disposable ion-exchange filtration devices while retaining Porshnev’s lead-lag operation and controlled flow.
Regarding claim 2, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende discloses the chemical capture system of claim 1, wherein the prefiltration stage is positioned upstream of the lead-lag system (Filson claim teaches passing the wastewater feed through a carbon bed and then passing the product stream to ion exchange, while Porshnev suggests the lead-lag system).
Regarding claim 7, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende discloses the chemical capture system of claim 1, wherein the lead-lag system is at least a dual lead-lag system (Porshnev par. [0050] teaches two columns alternately operating in lead and lag/regeneration roles).
Regarding claim 9, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende discloses the chemical capture system of claim 1, wherein one or more filtration devices of the lead-lag system comprises a cation exchange media (Porshnev par. [0040] discloses an embodiment with "strong acid cation functional groups").
Regarding claim 10, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende discloses the chemical capture system of claim 9, wherein the cation exchange media is a weak acid cation chelating resin with iminodiacetic-acid functional side groups (Filson col. 5 lines 57-58 expressly teaches that “the chelating ion exchange resin includes a macroporous iminodiacetic functional group” and further explains that the resin employs "iminodiacetic function group to attach the copper ions" (col. 19, lines 57-60)). Thus, Filson’s disclosed material is a cation chelating ion-exchange resin because the ion-exchange medium uses iminodiacetic-acid functionality to bind positively charged copper ions, and the iminodiacetic-acid groups provide the recited weak acid chelating functionality).
Regarding claim 13, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende discloses the chemical capture system of claim 1, wherein the one or more filtration devices is configured to be wholly incinerated (Gemende teaches that its ion-exchange filter cartridge is suitable as a disposable filter for heavy-metal removal and then in ¶[0029] states that “the cartridge is to be subjected to thermal utilization by gasification or combustion”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filson (US6346195) in view of Porshnev (WO2008008711A2) and Gemende (DE-102007003410-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Musale (US20080060999).
Regarding claim 3, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende discloses the chemical capture system of claim 1.
Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende, however, does not explicitly disclose the added limitation of claim 3 requiring that the prefiltration stage filters particles and particulates greater than 1.0 micron in size to greater than about 0.1 microns in size.
Musale is in the same field of heavy-metal removal from industrial wastewater using membrane-based filtration. Musale teaches that the microfiltration membrane has a pore size in the range of 0.1 to 10 μm (Musa le par. [0037]) and further teaches use of a submerged microfiltration membrane or ultrafiltration membrane may be further processed by additional membranes and in some embodiments may be either a reverse osmosis membrane or a nanofiltration membrane (Musa le par. [0036]) for heavy metal water treatment. Musa le also demonstrates in Example 1 a submerged flat-plate microfiltration membrane having a 0.4 μm pore size and explains that such membrane treatment is used for heavy-metal-containing industrial wastewater. Thus, Musale teaches filtration spanning particle/particulate removal from the micron-scale range down to about 0.1 micron, which renders obvious the claimed prefiltration range of filtering particles and particulates greater than 1.0 micron in size to greater than about 0.1 microns in size.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Filson/Porshnev/Gemende system to employ particle filtration within the range taught by Musale, including filtration from the micron-scale range to about 0.1 micron, because Filson already recognizes the importance of upstream particle control ahead of ion exchange, and Musale teaches membrane filtration for heavy-metal wastewater at pore sizes reaching 0.1 μm. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to incorporate Musale's finer particulate filtration teaching into the Filson/Porshnev/Gemende combination in order to improve particulate removal before downstream ion-exchange treatment, thereby reducing fouling, maintaining treatment efficiency, and predictably improving operation of the overall metal-removal system.
Regarding claim 4, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende and further in view of Musale discloses the chemical capture system of claim 1, wherein the prefiltration stage filters particles and particulates greater than about 0.1 microns in size (Filson claim 1 teaches prefiltration upstream metal removal and Musale par. [0037] teaches filtering particles using membranes with pore sizes which are including and greater than 0.1 microns in size).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filson (US6346195) in view of Porshnev (WO2008008711A2) and Gemende (DE-102007003410-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pulek (US-6391200-B2).
Regarding claim 5, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende discloses the chemical capture system of claim 1.
Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende does not explicitly disclose wherein the prefiltration stage comprises a radial-flow blow-molded depth filter or a disc filtration system or both.
Pulek is directed to filter cartridges for removing contaminants from fluids and expressly teaches the radial-flow depth-filter configuration recited by claim 5. Pulek teaches that filter assemblies conventionally include a tubular filter cartridge and that contaminated fluid is pumped into the housing and “radially inwardly through the filter cartridge”. Pulek further teaches that the cartridge includes a tubular core wrapped with layers of depth-filter medium and expressly states that “a typical depth filter medium is a non-woven, porous, melt-blown sheet or sheets of polypropylene micro fibers”. Pulek’s preferred embodiments likewise teach that the filter medium is of the depth filter type, that the nonwoven thermoplastic microfibers may be “melt blown”, and that the thermoplastic may comprise polypropylene. During operation, Pulek expressly describes contaminated fluid passing radially inward through the filter medium. Thus, Pulek teaches a radial-flow depth-filter cartridge employing nonwoven polypropylene microfiber filter media formed by a blown-polymer process, thereby rendering obvious the recited radial-flow blow-molded depth-filter configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the radial-flow depth-filter configuration taught by Pulek as the prefiltration stage of the Filson/Porshnev/Gemende chemical-capture system. Filson already employs upstream filtration before downstream ion-exchange metal removal, while Pulek teaches a tubular depth-filter cartridge in which contaminated fluid flows radially through nonwoven melt-blown thermoplastic filter media, including polypropylene. Pulek further teaches that its filter construction provides improved fluid distribution, reduced pressure drop, and increased filter life. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have had reason to employ Pulek’s known radial-flow depth-filter construction for the upstream filtration function of the combined system in order to provide effective particulate removal while reducing pressure drop and extending filter service life, with the predictable result of protecting the downstream ion-exchange treatment components from particulate loading.
Regarding claim 6, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende and further in view of Pulek discloses or renders obvious the chemical capture system of claim 5, wherein the radial-flow blow-molded depth filter is made of blow-molded nonwoven polypropylene (Pulek col. 5 “the filter medium 16 comprises melt-blown, nonwoven polypropylene micro fibers”).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filson (US6346195) in view of Porshnev (WO-2008008711-A2) and Gemende (DE-102007003410-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ionex (Ionex A/B manual).
Regarding claim 11, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende discloses or renders obvious the chemical capture system of claim 9.
Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the filtration device or devices have an internal structure configured to channel the contaminated waste stream such that the contaminated waste stream flows longitudinally, through the cation exchange media, and not radially from outside in or inside out.
The Ionex A/B manual is directed to a commercial waste water treatment unit employing filter and ion-exchange treatment stages for rinse-water treatment. The manual explains that the plant includes a filter element, two ion exchanger columns, and a neutralisation chamber and states that the waste water is fed by the peristaltic pump into the filter and then through the two ion exchanger columns into the neutralisation tank (Ionex p. 6 "Description of the Process"). More specifically, the manual states that "the waste water passes through the ion exchangers from top to bottom. The two columns containing the ion exchanger resin are connected in series." (Ionex p. 7). This teaches a filtration device having an internal structure that channels the waste water longitudinally through the ion-exchange media from top to bottom i.e., along the length of the ion-exchange column rather than radially from outside in or inside out.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the cation-exchange filtration device of the Filson/Porshnev/Gemende system to provide longitudinal flow through the cation exchange media as taught by the Ionex A/B manual. Filson already teaches upstream filtration followed by ion-exchange removal of metal ions from wastewater, and Porshnev teaches use of cation-exchange media in a series/lead-lag ion-exchange arrangement with controlled pumping through the columns. The Ionex A/B manual teaches that, in commercial wastewater-treatment systems using ion-exchange columns, the waste water is passed from top to bottom through ion-exchange resin columns connected in series. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ that known longitudinal flow arrangement in the Filson/Porshnev/Gemende system in order to direct the contaminated waste stream through the cation-exchange media in a predictable, efficient manner and thereby provide adequate contact of the stream with the resin bed during treatment.
Regarding claim 12, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende and further in view of Ionex discloses or renders obvious the chemical capture system of claim 11, wherein the cation exchange media is configured as beads and fibers (Gemende ¶[0009] teaches ion exchange media in fiber form and further describes a known ion-exchange filter in which “individual ion exchange fibers are arranged in the form of a grid” while “synthetic resin beads are directly adhesively bonded” to the carrier structure, thereby teaching an ion-exchange media configuration incorporating both fiber and bead structures) and made with a chemical structure having exposed iminodiacetic-acid functional side groups (Filson col. 5 “the chelating ion exchange resin includes a macroporous iminodiacetic functional group”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filson (US6346195) in view of Porshnev (WO-2008008711-A2) and Gemende (DE-102007003410-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below), and further in view of Ionex (Ionex A/B manual) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Vincent (US-20130030340-A1).
Regarding claim 19, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende and further in view of Ionex discloses or renders obvious the chemical capture system of claim 12.
Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende and further in view of Ionex, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the fibers are about 0.1% to about 10.0% of the total cation exchange media weight.
Vincent is directed to nonwoven fibrous filtration media containing chemically active particulates and specifically teaches fibrous media containing ion-exchange resin beads. Vincent identifies Purolite C107E as “ion exchange resin beads (weak cation exchange resin)” (Vincent ¶[0265]). In Example 3a, Vincent prepares an “ion exchange resin bead-containing web” using Purolite C107E beads at a basis weight of 840 g/m2 and simultaneously incorporates Trevira T255 fibers at a basis weight of 40 g/m2, expressly describing the fiber loading as “equal to 4.5% by weight of the basis weight of the ion exchange beads containing web” (Vincent ¶¶[0287-0288]). Vincent therefore teaches incorporating fibers into an ion-exchange-bead-containing filtration medium at approximately 4.5 wt.%, a fiber proportion falling within the claimed range of about 0.1% to about 10.0%. Vincent further teaches maintaining the certain fibers at greater than 0% and less than 10 wt.% so that chemically active particulates may be adequately secured in the fibrous web “without occluding a substantial portion of the chemically active particulate 130 surface” (Vincent ¶[0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a fiber proportion within the range taught by Vincent when implementing the bead-and-fiber cation-exchange media of the Filson/Porshnev/Gemende/Ionex system. The prior combination already renders obvious configuring the cation-exchange media beads and fibers having the claimed iminodiacetic-acid functionality, while Vincent demonstrates that an ion-exchange-bead-containing filtration medium may employ a fiber loading of approximately 4.5 wt.%, squarely within the recited 0.1% to 10.0% range. Vincent further provides an express technical reason for maintaining a relatively low fiber proportion: adequately securing the chemically active particulates while avoiding substantial occlusion of their active surfaces. A person of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have had reason to employ a fiber proportion within Vincent’s taught range in the bead-and-fiber cation-exchange media of the prior combination to obtain the predictable benefits of retaining the media structure while preserving accessibility of the chemically active ion-exchange material.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filson (US6346195) in view of Porshnev (WO-2008008711-A2) and Gemende (DE-102007003410-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Branum (US-10273165-B1).
Regarding claim 14, Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende discloses or renders obvious the chemical capture system of claim 9.
Filson in view of Porshnev and Gemende does not explicitly disclose that the means for controlling the flow rate of the contaminated waste stream is a flow meter and control system.
Branum is directed to monitoring and controlling water-treatment systems and expressly teaches an ion-exchange treatment arrangement comprising a worker bed containing ion-exchange media followed by a downstream polisher bed containing ion-exchange media. Branum claim 1 further expressly teaches “a flow meter positioned at least one of upstream of the worker bed and downstream of the polisher bed” and “a controller in communication with the flow meter”, wherein the controller receives flow data measured by the flow meter. Branum col. 10 additionally teaches that the control system may control inlet or outlet valves “to adjust a flow rate or residence time of water within the water treatment device”, and explains that the local monitor performing this control may be implemented as hardware or software in the controller. Thus, Branum expressly teaches a flow meter and associated control system capable of monitoring flow and controlling the flow rate through an ion-exchange water-treatment system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flow-control means of the Filson/Porshnev/Gemende chemical capture system with the flow meter and control system taught by Branum. Porshnev already teaches controlling the passage of contaminated fluid through ion-exchange treatment devices by controller-operated pumping, while Branum teaches a known implementation in an ion-exchange water-treatment system in which a flow meter supplies measured flow data to a controller and the control system adjusts flow through the treatment device by controlling inlet or outlet valves. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have had reason to employ Branum’s flow meter and control system in the combined system to provide measured flow information and corresponding control of treatment flow rate, thereby allowing the desired flow through the ion-exchange treatment stages to be monitored and adjusted in a predictable manner.
Claims 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filson (US6346195) in view of Porshnev (WO2008008711A2), Gemende (DE-102007003410-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below), Branum (US-10273165-B1) and Brown (US-20040102658-A1).
Regarding claim 15, Filson discloses a chemical capture system for removing metals from a contaminated waste stream (Filson claim 1), comprising: (i) a prefiltration stage wherein the prefiltration stage is positioned upstream of the lead-lag system; (Filson claim 1 teaches passing “a wastewater feed containing hydrogen per oxide and metal ions in solution through a carbon bed” and thereafter passing the carbon-bed product stream to an ion-exchange unit for removal of the metal-ions); and cation exchange media for removing metals from the contaminated waste stream (Filson col. 5 teaches chelating ion-exchange resin used to remove copper ions from the wastewater, therefore teaching upstream treatment followed by cation-exchange capture of metal ions).
Filson does not explicitly disclose (ii) a dual lead-lag system comprising one or more disposable chemical filtration cartridges as one or more filtration devices, wherein at least one of the filtration devices comprises cation exchange media; and (iii) a flow meter and control system for controlling the flow rate of the contaminated waste stream through the chemical capture system; and wherein the filtration device comprising the cation exchange media is configured to be wholly incinerated for recovery of at least some of the metals removed from the contaminated waste stream.
Porshnev is directed to ion-exchange treatment of a metal-containing CMP process stream and teaches the claimed dual lead-lag arrangement. Porshnev discloses passing slurry through a first ion-exchange column 102a while a second ion-exchange column 102b is being regenerated and vice versa, and further teaches that when column 102a requires regeneration, column 102b is used for ion exchange and vice versa (Porshnev ¶[0047], [0050]). Porshnev therefore teaches plural ion-exchange treatment devices operated alternately to maintain treatment while one device is unavailable for service. Porshnev additionally teaches cation-exchange resin media within the treatment columns.
Gemende is directed to an ion-exchange filter cartridge for treatment of water and wastewater, particularly for removal of heavy metals, and expressly teaches that its filter cartridge is particularly suitable as a “disposable filter” because of simple handling, low equipment complexity, and uncomplicated disposal (Gemende ¶[0027]). Gemende further expressly teaches that, when used for removal of heavy metals in high concentrations, “the cartridge is to be subjected to thermal utilization by gasification or combustion” (Gemende ¶[0029]).
Branum is directed to monitoring and controlling water-treatment systems employing ion-exchange media and expressly teaches a “flow meter positioned at least one of upstream of the worker bed and downstream of the polisher bed” together with “a controller in communication with the flow meter”, wherein the controller receives measured flow data (Branum claim 1).
Brown is directed to recovery of metal values using ion-exchange resin and teaches contacting a metal-containing stream with ion-exchange resin such that metal values become bound to the resin, incinerating the metal-loaded resin to form an ash containing the metal values and/or oxides thereof, and recovering the metal values from the resulting ash (Brown ¶[0014-0017]). Thus, Brown establishes that incineration of metal-loaded ion-exchange material was a known technique specifically for recovery of the captured metals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Filson’s metal-removal wastewater treatment system to employ the dual lead-lag ion-exchange arrangement taught by Porshnev, to provide the ion-exchange treatment devices as disposable heavy-metal-removal cartridges taught by Gemende, to incorporate Branum’s flow meter and control system for monitoring and adjusting flow through the treatment system, and to recover the captured metals following combustion in accordance with Brown. Porshnev teaches the operational benefit of alternate ion-exchange treatment devices for maintaining treatment capability; Gemende expressly identifies simple handling, low equipment complexity, and uncomplicated disposal as advantages of its disposable heavy-metal ion-exchange cartridge and further teaches combustion of the loaded cartridge; Branum teaches measured flow-rate monitoring and adjustment in an ion-exchange water-treatment system; and Brown teaches that incineration of metal-loaded ion-exchange material permits recovery of the captured metal values from the resulting ash. The proposed combination therefore applies known ion-exchange treatment, cartridge-disposal, flow-control, and metal-recovery techniques according to their established functions to obtain the predictable result of a controlled dual lead-lag metal-removal system employing disposable ion-exchange cartridges whose captured metals are recovered following incineration.
Regarding claim 17, Filson in view of Porshnev, Gemende, Branum and Brown discloses or renders obvious the chemical capture system of claim 15, wherein the cation exchange media is a weak acid cation chelating resin with iminodiacetic-acid functional side groups (Filson col. 5 lines 57-58 expressly teaches that “the chelating ion exchange resin includes a macroporous iminodiacetic functional group” and further explains that the resin employs "iminodiacetic function group to attach the copper ions" (col. 19, lines 57-60)). Thus, Filson’s disclosed material is a cation chelating ion-exchange resin because the ion-exchange medium uses iminodiacetic-acid functionality to bind positively charged copper ions, and the iminodiacetic-acid groups provide the recited weak acid chelating functionality).
Regarding claim 20, Filson in view of Porshnev, Gemende, Branum and Brown discloses or renders obvious a method of chemical capture for removing metals from a contaminated waste stream (Filson claim 1), the method comprising: (i) prefiltering the contaminated waste stream to remove particles and particulates to produce a first contaminated effluent (Branum col. 12 teaches that inlet water “passes through a pre-filter 420”); (ii) filtering the first contaminated effluent via a dual lead-lag system comprising a plurality of disposable chemical filtration cartridges as filtration devices (Porshnev ¶¶[0014],[0047] teaches two ion-exchange columns operated alternately such that one performs ion-exchange treatment while the other is regenerated, thereby teaching the dual lead-lag arrangement; Gemende ¶[0027] teaches an ion-exchange filter cartridge for water and wastewater treatment that is particularly suitable as a “disposable filter” for heavy metal removal), wherein at least one of the plurality of filtration devices comprises cation exchange media that removes metals from the first contaminated effluent (Porshnev ¶[0040-0041] teaches cation-exchange resin media in the treatment columns, while Filson col. 19 teaches ion-exchange removal of metal ions from wastewater); and (iii) controlling the flow rate of the contaminated waste stream or the first contaminated effluent via a flow meter and control system (Branum claim 1 “a flow meter” and “a controller in communication with the flow meter”); (iv) removing at least one of the plurality of filtration devices (Gemende ¶[0029] teaches a disposable ion-exchange filter cartridge that, after heavy-metal service, is subjected to disposal by combustion renders obvious removing the spent cartridge from the treatment system prior to that disposal treatment); and (v) wholly incinerating at least one of the plurality of filtration devices for recovery of at least some of the metals removed from the contaminated waste stream (Gemende ¶[0029] and Brown abstract and claim 1 teaches that incinerating metal-loaded ion-exchange resin to form ash containing the captured metal values and recovering the metal values from the resulting ash).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filson (US6346195) in view of Porshnev (WO2008008711A2), Gemende (DE-102007003410-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below), Branum (US-10273165-B1) and Brown (US-20040102658-A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ahlberg (US-4,925,557), Di'Tommaso (US-8158097-B2) and Stifter (WO-2012034028-A2).
Regarding claim 16, Filson in view of Porshnev, Gemende, Branum and Brown discloses the chemical capture system of claim 15.
The combination of Filson in view of Porshnev, Gemende, Branum and Brown does not explicitly disclose that the prefiltration stage comprises a mechanical turbo disc filtration sub-system for removing particle or particulate matter from 1.0 micron in size to 0.5 microns in size followed by an ultrafiltration hollow tube membrane filter to remove particle or particulate matter from about 0.5 microns in size to about 0.1 microns in size, and wherein a blow-molded nonwoven polypropylene filter removes all sedimentary particles above 1.0 micron in size.
Ahlberg is directed to fine-particle liquid filtration using mechanically rotating membrane-covered discs and therefore addresses the claimed mechanical disc-filtration stage. Ahlberg expressly teaches a “rotating, hollow, disc filter” and explains that such a filter is intended to remove “particles as small as 0.45 microns” (Ahlberg col. 1). Ahlberg further reports operation using “a disc membrane with 0.5-micron pore size” on a 16-inch disc rotating at 2000 rpm. Accordingly, Ahlberg teaches a mechanically driven rotating-disc filtration subsystem capable of removing particulate matter at approximately 0.5 micron, thereby rendering obvious the claimed mechanical turbo disc filtration sub-system for removing particulate matter in the approximately 1.0- to 0.5-micron range.
Di’Tommaso is directed to treatment of contaminated flowback wastewater and teaches a downstream ultrafiltration stage for removal fine suspended particulate matter. Di’Tommaso col. 8 expressly teaches that “Ultrafiltration 207 uses a mechanical filter with a pore size of from about 0.01 to about 0.1 micron” and that the filter removes suspended solid particles and colloidal solids from the wastewater. Di’Tommaso further identifies the ultrafilter membranes as “Tubular 8 mm .D PVDF” membranes (Di’Tommaso col. 8 table 2). Thus, Di’Tommaso teaches a hollow tubular ultrafiltration membrane capable of removing particulate matter down to approximately 0.1 micron, thereby rending obvious the claimed ultrafiltration hollow tube membrane filter for removal of particulate matter in the approximately 0.5-to-0.1-micron range.
Stifter is directed to water pretreatment using staged depth and fine filtration and teaches the claimed nonwoven polypropylene filtration of larger sedimentary particles. Stifter teaches that a depth filter may comprise “a non-woven media of meltblown or spunbond filaments” and further identifies polypropylene as a representative polymer useful for forming the depth filter. Stifter expressly teaches that the depth-filter structure may be formed with a pore size of “1 micron or less” such that it provides “absolute removal of …1-micron particles” and further provides an embodiment comprising a “graded density depth filter of melt-blown polypropylene”. Accordingly, Stifter teaches or renders obvious a blown-polymer nonwoven polypropylene filter capable of removing sedimentary particles at and above approximately 1.0 micron.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prefiltration stage of the Filson/Porshnev/Gemende/Branum/Brown system to incorporate the known staged filtration techniques taught by Ahlberg, Di’Tommaso, and Stifter. Ahlberg teaches mechanically rotating disc filtration capable of removing particles at approximately 0.5 micron; Di’Tommaso teaches tubular ultrafiltration of contaminated wastewater down to approximately 0.1 micron; and Stifter teaches nonwoven melt-blown polypropylene depth filtration capable of removing particles at approximately 1 micron and expressly explains that an upstream depth filter inhibits larger particles from reaching a finer downstream filter, thereby increasing dirt-holding capacity and reducing premature plugging. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have had reason to employ these known filtration stages together in the prefiltration portion of the claim-15 system so that progressively finer particulate matter is removed before the contaminated waste stream reaches the downstream ion-exchange treatment stages, thereby reducing fouling and loading of the finer filtration and ion-exchange components and predictably improving treatment efficiency and service life.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filson (US6346195) in view of Porshnev (WO2008008711A2), Gemende (DE-102007003410-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below), Branum (US-10273165-B1) and Brown (US-20040102658-A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ionex (Ionex A/B Manual).
Regarding claim 18, Filson in view of Porshnev, Gemende, Branum and Brown discloses the chemical capture system of claim 15.
Filson in view of Porshnev, Gemende, Branum and Brown, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more filtration devices have an internal structure configured to channel the contaminated waste stream such that the contaminated waste stream flows longitudinally, through the cation exchange media, and not radially from outside in or inside out.
Ionex is directed to a commercial wastewater-treatment unit employing filtration and ion-exchange treatment stages and therefore addresses the manner in which wastewater is directed through ion-exchange media. Ionex teaches that “the waste water passes through the ion exchangers from top to bottom. The two columns containing the ion exchanger resin are connected in series” (Ionex p. 7). This top-to-bottom passage through column-contained ion-exchange resin teaches longitudinal flow along the length of the ion-exchange device and therefore renders obvious configuring the filtration device so that the contaminated waste stream flows longitudinally through the cation-exchange media rather than radially from outside-in or inside-out.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the cation-exchange filtration devices of the Filson/Porshnev/Gemende/Branum/Brown system to provide longitudinal flow through the cation-exchange media as taught by Ionex. The prior combination already provides a dual lead-lag arrangement employing disposable cation-exchange filtration cartridges for removing metals from contaminated wastewater, while Ionex teaches a known commercial wastewater-treatment configuration in which wastewater passes from top to bottom through serial ion-exchange resin columns. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have had reason to employ Ionex’s known longitudinal flow arrangement in the claimed filtration devices to direct the contaminated waste stream predictably through the length of the cation-exchange media and provide effective contact between the waste stream and the ion-exchange resin during treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
