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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 7-13, in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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 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.
Claims 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litz et al. (US20180194643A1).
Regarding claim 7, Litz teaches a method of removing radium from an aqueous media using natural or synthetic zeolites (Abstract; Title). Litz teaches adsorbents contains SiO2, Na2O, MgO, and Fe2O3 can be used to adsorb radium (Table 1; [0034]-[0037]). Litz teaches the adsorbent is mixed with the aqueous fluid containing the radium which serves to remove the radium from the water, after which the treated aqueous media is discharged from the zeolite and the radium laden zeolite is replaced if needed ([0048]-[0051]).
Examiner notes Litz does not explicitly teach a compound with the formula (SiO2)11(Na2O)11(MgO)9(Fe2O3)4. However Litz teaches effective aqueous radium adsorbents that contain SiO2, Na2O, MgO, and Fe2O3. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. In the instant case, a skilled artisan could modify adsorbents containing SiO2, Na2O, MgO, and Fe2O3, as taught by Litz, in order to arrive at an effective radium adsorbent, as required by the claim, for treating aqueous solutions. See MPEP 2144.II.A.
Regarding claim 8, Litz teaches the method of claim 7 and Litz teaches the radioactive material is radium ([0005]; [0041]).
Regarding claim 9, Litz teaches the method of claim 7 and further teaches water from industrial output can be contaminated with radium ([0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 11, Litz teaches the method of claim 7 and Litz further teaches radium can be present in naturally occurring water supplies ([0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Litz teaches the method of claim 7 and Litz further teaches the aqueous fluid can be moved through a tank or column containing the adsorbent ([0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Litz teaches the method of claim 7 and 13 and Litz further teaches the zeolite adsorbent can be continuously disposed of at low-level radioactive waste sites prior to being replaced with new or fresh zeolite to replace the spent zeolite ([0045]; [0051]). The term “semi-continuous” is interpreted as a process that may be halted to allow for replacement and/or replenishment of adsorbent, consistent with the description provided in [0041] of the instant specification. Accordingly, Litz teaching continuously operating radium removal with intermittent replacement of spent adsorbent is consistent with the term “semi-continuous”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litz et al. (US20180194643A1) in view of Warner et al. (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11849-11857).
Regarding claim 10, Litz teaches the method of claim 7 and the claim further requires the aqueous fluid “is from a fracking process,” to which Litz is silent.
Warner teaches the treatment of wastewater produced from hydraulic fracturing (i.e. fracking) that contains high levels of radium contaminants (Abstract; Pg. 11849, Introduction).
Advantageously, wastewater from hydraulic fracturing can enter the public water and is therefore desirable to treat due to its need to be recycled (Pg. 11849, Introduction).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an aqueous fluid from hydraulic fracturing in the process of Litz in order to treat wastewater than can enter public water facilities, as taught by Warner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shafiquzzaman et al. (Water 2021, 13, 2799); teaches radium removal from sludge wastewater (Title; Abstract). Aimes et al. (Clays and Clay Minerals 1983, 31, 5, 335-342); teaches radium removal with minerals (Title; Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
