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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-21 are pending:
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Claims 8-19 are allowed.
Claims 20-21 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-21 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/28/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 07/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “and/or”; it is unclear what it intended by the slash (‘/’) notation thus rendering the claim scope of the claim ambiguous and indefinite. Additionally, the phrase “and/or” is unclear because it is ambiguous whether the limitation requires: (i) A alone, (ii) B alone, or both A and B together.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klavins (LV 14399).
Regarding claim 1, Klavins teaches a method for removing contaminants from an aqueous stream (sorbents useable for purification of drink water, particularly for removal of arsenic compound, see ABS), comprising:
(i) contacting an aqueous stream having a first contaminant concentration with a composition for treating water (“Use solutions of As containing 300,200, 100, 50, 25, 10 and 5 mg / l of As (respectively As (5), As (3), As (-3). Weigh 1 g of the sorbent under investigation into 100 ml glass stoppered bottles. Shake and shake the flask at room temperature for 24 h using a shaker The filtrate is filtered, the filtrate is analyzed for arsenic by atomic absorption spectrometry”, see example 4) comprising:
(a) an organic soil amendment selected from the group consisting of …humic acid, humic acid salts (humic acid salts or iron humates, see ABS)…and
(b) cations selected from … iron cations (i.e. iron) …wherein the cations are bound to the soil amendment (“ the iron humate precipitates”, see example 2 which implies iron cations are bound to humic acid salts) and the composition comprises about 1 % to about 50% by weight cations (iron content is 6.4%, see example 1 and iron content 8.8%, see example 2) based on the total weight of the composition not taking into account any water present in the composition (implied in examples 1 and 2);
(ii) removing contaminant from the aqueous stream by contact of the aqueous stream with the composition (“Adsorption of arsenic on synthesized sorbents. The sorption of arsenic on ferric humates was studied using various concentrations of arsenic solutions. Use solutions of As containing 300,200, 100, 50, 25, 10 and 5 mg / l of As (respectively As (5), As (3), As (-3). Weigh 1 g of the sorbent under investigation into 100 ml glass stoppered bottles. Shake and shake the flask at room temperature for 24 h using a shaker…The filtrate is filtered”, see example 4); and
(iii) providing a treated aqueous stream with a second contaminant concentration less than the first contaminant concentration (“Adsorption of arsenic on synthesized sorbents. The sorption of arsenic on ferric humates was studied using various concentrations of arsenic solutions…the filtrate is analyzed for arsenic by atomic absorption spectrometry. The proposed sorbent allows to increase the sorption capacity of arsenic compounds and to provide sorption of all compounds of the arsenic oxidation state (As -3, As 3, As 5) in water”, see example 4; it is implied that the second contaminant concentration is less than the first contaminant concentration in order to produce drinking water which inherently has low levels of arsenic).
Regarding claim 2, Klavins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the contaminant is selected from the group consisting of …arsenic (i.e. arsenic)…
Regarding claim 6, Klavins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the contaminant is removed by sorbing (i.e. sorption capacity of arsenic)…
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.
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 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klavins (LV 14399) in view of Williams (US 2005/0150836).
Regarding claim 3, Klavins teaches the method of claim 1.
Klavins does not teach that the second contaminant concentration is about 50% to about 90% less than the first contaminant concentration.
In a related field of endeavor, Williams teaches regenerating of chemically treated zeolite (see ABS) comprising a second contaminant concentration is about 50% to about 90% less than the first contaminant concentration (“removal of arsenic from an aqueous source is at least 50%, preferably at least 75% and most preferably at least 90%, from the original levels in the zeolite treated source”, see ¶34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Klavins by selecting a contaminant removal between 50-90% as disclosed by Williams because this range ensures that the treatment is effective and that the treated water reaches an improved water quality standard (Williams, see ¶4).
Regarding claim 4, Klavins teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising setting a target concentration for the contaminant in the treated aqueous stream (“The offered sorbent for purification of drink water from arsenic compounds contains iron humic acid salts (iron humates) obtained from peat and composition thereof comprises iron at least 5 %, and carbon content is from 20 % to 50 %.”, see pg. 4; “Adsorption of arsenic on synthesized sorbents. The sorption of arsenic on ferric humates was studied using various concentrations of arsenic solutions…the filtrate is analyzed for arsenic by atomic absorption spectrometry. The proposed sorbent allows to increase the sorption capacity of arsenic compounds and to provide sorption of all compounds of the arsenic oxidation state (As -3, As 3, As 5) in water”, see example 4; it is implied that a target contaminant is treated in order to produce drinking water which inherently has low levels of arsenic); monitoring the second contaminant concentration (“the filtrate is analyzed for arsenic by atomic absorption spectrometry”, see example 4)…
Klavis does not teach comparing it to the target concentration; and replacing or renewing the composition when the second contaminant concentration in the treated aqueous stream exceeds the target concentration.
In a related field of endeavor, Williams teaches regenerating of chemically treated zeolite (see ABS) comprising the steps of: monitoring the second contaminant concentration (“system for monitoring and maintaining an arsenic removal/disposal system by an off-site provider is also disclosed”, see ABS) and comparing it to the target concentration (“In step 210, the discharge level of arsenic in the aqueous media is measured and is preferably compared to the first and second levels of arsenic in the aqueous media”, see ¶59); and replacing or renewing the composition when the second contaminant concentration in the treated aqueous stream exceeds the target concentration (“In step 212, a portion of the spent zeolite is bled away from the aqueous media and replaced with an equal amount of fresh chemically treated zeolite”, see ¶60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Klavins by incorporating comparing and replacing steps as disclosed by Williams because it provides the benefit of removing the burden of maintaining, monitoring and replacing sorbents on the water treatment facilitator manager (Williams, see ¶75).
Regarding claim 7, Klavins teaches the method of claim 1.
Klavins does not teach that the aqueous stream is rainwater or water run-off.
In a related field of endeavor, Williams teaches regenerating of chemically treated zeolite (see ABS) comprising an aqueous stream is rainwater or water run-off (a source of ground water, see ¶34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Klavins by selecting a groundwater source as the aqueous stream as disclosed by Williams because it applying a known contaminated aqueous source to known treatment method because it is known that ground water among other well-known aqueous media applications contain contaminants such as arsenic and it is desirable to improve the quality of said ground water (Williams, see ¶54); therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation success by modifying the claimed process of Klavins to yield predictable results of treating the ground water and improving said quality to produce drinking water. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klavins (LV 14399) in view of Williams (US 2005/015083) and further in view of Rubel (NPL Document Titled – Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media, see NPL Document in 892).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Klavins teaches the method of claim 4.
Modified Klavins does not teach that the target concentration is set at the limit of detection for the contaminant.
In a related field of endeavor, Rubel teaches a design manual for removal of arsenic from drinking water by absorptive media (see Title and ABS) comprising a target concentration is set at the limit of detection for the contaminant (“The treatment band then begins to migrate downward slowly through the treatment bed until arsenic starts to break through. Breakthrough is defined as the first detectable amount of arsenic appearing in the effluent from the lead column. Although the detectable level will vary depending on the analytical method used to measure the arsenic, it would likely be near 3 µg/L. An example of a breakthrough curve of the lead column is shown in Figure 5-3”, see pg. 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Klavins (as modified by Williams) by selecting a target concentration that is set at the limit of detection for the contaminant as disclosed by Rubel because it is applying a known first detectable breakthrough point to a known water treatment method to yield the predictable result of providing a desirable set point standard for monitoring and replacement process steps. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior reference of record is Denkewicz (USPN 6,312,604) and Burba (US 2009/011 1689).
Denkewicz nor Burba teaches nor reasonably suggest a method of removing a contaminant from an aqueous stream by contacting the stream with a composition comprising a recited organic soil amendment to which rare earth cations are bound, wherein the rare earth cations constitute about 1% to about 50% by weight of the composition excluding water. Dependent claims are hereby allowable due to dependency from allowed claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights