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 first action on the merits of the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Status of the Application
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 01/15/2024.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because the applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 filed on 01/15/2024 are currently pending. Claims 6-18 are withdrawn and claims 1-5 are currently under examination in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted with this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Claim 3 recites a “phase-change silica gel” as one alternative species of the phase-change material, but this term lacks a recognized meaning in the art. Silica gel is conventionally understood as a porous and adsorbent material, not a material exhibiting phase-transition in the biologically relevant temperature range. It is unclear whether the phrase “phase-change silica gel” refers to a silica gel that itself undergoes a phase-change, or a silica gel used as a carrier matrix for a separate phase-change material. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of this claimed species with reasonable certainty. For examining this application, the examiner interprets “phase-change silica gel” as a carrier matrix containing a phase-change material.
In addition, claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the recited 35° C temperature limitation applies to all three enumerated species of phase-change material - microcapsule, silica gel, and fiber - or to the microcapsule species alone.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1,3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bo et al hereinafter Bo (CN108483644B; with page and paragraph reference made to Espacenet machine translation obtained on 12 Aug 2026) in view of Wang et al hereinafter Wang (CN114014441A; with page and paragraph reference made to Clarivate Analytics machine translation obtained on 14 Aug 2026) and further in view of Xu et al hereinafter Xu (Synthesis and Properties of Microencapsulated Solid Paraffin Phase Change Materials; Key Engineering Materials; Vol 519 pp 1-5).
As per claim 1 and 3, Bo discloses a composition for promoting rapid startup and stable operation of the Anammox process, comprising:
- Iron powder (equivalent to claimed functional component which is an iron-based material) (see Example 2, page 7, line 4).
- Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) (equivalent to claimed framework material) (see Example 2, page 7, line 3).
- foaming agent (see Example 2, page 7, line 8).
Bo does not disclose: (i) a phase-change material (regulatory component), (ii) the mass ratios of framework material to foaming agent, (iii) the mass ratio of the functional component, the regulatory component, and the structural component.
Wang teaches that Anammox bacteria are sensitive to operating temperatures (the anaerobic ammonia oxidizing bacteria is sensitive to temperature, etc..; page 2, line 4-7). Wang teaches that Anammox’s temperature sensitivity is a recognized problem in the art, motivating specialized process and carrier engineering to maintain denitrification optimal performance outside of the optimal temperature window.
With respect to (i), Xu discloses the synthesis and properties of microencapsulated phase-change materials wherein the phase change material regulates the temperature of the medium via its latent heat of phase transition (abstract; lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite Anammox carrier of Bo by incorporating a microencapsulated phase change material as taught by Xu, motivated by Wangs’s teaching that Anammox bacteria are sensitive to temperature fluctuations (page 2; lines 4-5). A skilled artisan seeking to improve the growth of the Anammox bacteria would have recognized, from Wang, that the temperature fluctuation is a significant obstacle to consistent Anammox performance, and would have been motivated to address this known problem by incorporating Xu’s microencapsulated phase-change material.
With respect to (ii) and (iii) directed to mass ratios, Bo discloses multiple working examples varying its own component ratios (iron powder, particle size) and correlates these variations with measurable differences in Anammox start up time and nitrogen removal efficiency (see Bo example 1-3; comparative example 1 and table 1). Further, recognizing criticality of using a phase-change material as disclosed by Xu and Wang, it would have been within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to have determined the effective amount/ratios of each component without undue experimentation.
As per claim 4, Bo and Xu in combination disclose the microcarrier composition of claim 1, and Xu further discloses the microencapsulated phase change material has a particle size of 6-33 µm. The Xu particle size (6-33 µm) overlaps with the claimed range (5-10 µm). Overlapping ranges establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bo in view of Wang and Xu and further in view of Li et al hereinafter Li (CN114230010A with page and paragraph reference made to Clarivate Analytics machine translation obtained on 14 August 2026).
As per claim 2, Bo discloses iron powder as the iron-based functional component but does not disclose an iron-based metal organic farmwork (Fe-MOF) or ferrous carbonate. Li discloses ferrous carbonate (claim 8; line 4) as a known Fe (II) source used for iron-mediated nitrogen removal, including a working example (example 1; page 8, line 3) combining FeCO3 with biological carbon in a denitrification reactor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Bo’s iron powder with the ferrous carbonate of Li as a simple substitution of one known, functionally equivalent iron source for another to achieve the predictable result of supplying Fe2+ to the microbial biomass.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bo in view of Wang and Xu and further in view of Lawes et al hereinafter Lawes (US3,481,886).
As for claim 5, Bo discloses polyvinyl alcohol PVA as a component of the structural composition forming the carrier but does not disclose its foaming agent as SLS or AES. Lawes discloses that solutions of polyvinyl alcohol are conventionally foamed using surfactants, including sodium lauryl sulfate, establishing SLS as a known, effective foaming agent for PVA containing compositions (column 4 ; lines 48-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select SLS, as taught by Lawes, as the specific foaming agent in Bo’s PVA containing structural composition, to achieve the predictable result of a foamed PVA structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bachar EL Haj Hassan whose telephone number is (571)270-0121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Insuk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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 the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BACHAR EL HAJ HASSAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights