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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 5-7 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection and objections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 03/23/2026. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that regarding claim 1, “ In Foster et al, the system of Figure 8 has no recirculation. The system of FIG. 14 has recirculation, but is only a batch process- there is no continuous influent /effluent flow”, however the amended Claims 1 is currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster, John E et al. “Towards High Throughput Plasma Based Water Purifiers: Design Considerations and the Pathway towards Practical Application.” herein known as Foster, in view of Guo et al. (CN101041489A, Machine Translation) herein known as Guo.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster, John E et al. “Towards High Throughput Plasma Based Water Purifiers: Design Considerations and the Pathway towards Practical Application.” herein known as Foster, in view of Guo et al. (CN101041489A, Machine Translation) herein known as Guo.
PNG
media_image1.png
447
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig 1, Guo)
Regarding Claim 1, Foster is directed to high throughput plasma-based water treatment system and to advanced oxidation processes (Abstract).
Foster discloses a flow reactor (packed bed reactor (PWR)) system for processing a fluid to be treated, the flow reactor system comprising: a detention tank (water reservoir) having an influent and an effluent, the detention tank receiving the fluid to be treated from the influent and outputting a treated fluid from the effluent; a recirculation system fluidly coupled to the detention tank and configured to circulate a recirculation fluid from the detention tank to the detention tank, the recirculation system having a first line fluidly coupled to the detention tank, a second line downstream of the first line fluidly coupled to the detention tank, a recirculation pump (single-phase polypropylene pump) fluidly coupled between the first line and the second line and providing a fluid driving force, and a plasma reactor operably coupled to the second line to treat the recirculation fluid and output the treated fluid (Figure 14; Figure 8; Page 10, Left column, Lines 4-16; Page 13, Lines, Right column, Lines 39-51; Page 3, Left column, Lines 1-13; Page 9, Right column, Lines 5-19) .
However, Foster is silent to a detention tank having a continuous flow of an influent and an effluent.
Guo is directed to a low-temperature plasma technology process device for treating oilfield wastewater, especially heavy oil wastewater, which can be used efficiently and multifunctionally [0006].
Guo discloses the low-temperature plasma technology process device for treating oilfield wastewater has functions such as high efficiency sterilization, and advanced oxidation. It provides enhanced pretreatment of wastewater, improves the adaptability of the entire process to water quality fluctuations [0009].
Guo disclosed to a detention tank (multifunctional reactor (5)) having a continuous flow of an influent (bottom inlet) and an effluent (water outlet at the top 10) (Fig 1; [0008], (The multifunctional reactor has a distributor at the bottom and water outlet at the top. One or more sets of discharge electrodes are installed inside the reactor, The dissolved air water in the pressure stabilizing tank enters the reactor from the bottom inlet, passes through the distributor, and enters the discharge reaction space between the electrode sets. The discharged gas is discharged from the top, and the treated wastewater flows out through the drain valve. This process unit uses low-temperature plasma technology as its core, combined with dissolved air flotation technology, to oxidize and degrade the recalcitrant, colloidal oilfield wastewater that flows continuously within it. This process unit can be installed or applied after the oil separation or flotation stage in oilfield wastewater treatment processes, and also has functions such as air flotation, high efficiency sterilization, and advanced oxidation)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Foster ‘s reactor system, as taught by Guo, wherein a detention tank having a continuous flow of an influent and an effluent in order to provide enhanced pretreatment of wastewater, improves the adaptability of the entire process to water quality fluctuations (See Guo, [0009]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Foster discloses the detention tank is sized to attain a predetermined hydraulic retention time (Page 9, Right column, Lines 5-19, The detention tank and diffuser are sized such that the contaminants are exposed long enough to radicals and are fully treated before the water leaves the tank; Page 14, Right Column, Lines 12-20, To quantify the reactor’s capacity to inject advanced oxidants into flowing water, the reactor was operated on 0.5 L of deionized water for 5 min at a recirculation flow rate of 4.3 L min−1. Figure 16 shows variations in peroxide, ozone, and pH after closed loop treatment. In this regard, the effective once through flow rate is simply the reservoir volume divided by the total treatment time).
Regarding Claim 3, Foster discloses the flow reactor system wherein the detention tank is sized to achieve once-through treatment of the fluid to be treated (Page 4, Right Column, Lines 42-46, In general, while numerous plasma reactors have demonstrated the ability to decompose a range of contaminants, the majority of these studies processed water in small batch reactor configurations. In general, once-through configurations are desired for practical applications particularly where throughput is fairly high; Page 9, Right column, Lines 5-19; Page 14, Right Column, Lines 12-20; Page 14, Right Column, Lines 12-20).
Regarding Claim 4, Foster discloses the flow reactor system wherein the plasma reactor treats the recirculation fluid at a reaction zone (Figure 14 (a)).
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 communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-6535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 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.
/MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights