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. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “Purification method for purifying contaminated water” in line 1. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “A purification
Claim 1 recites “the raw side” in line 13 which lacks an antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “the purified water” in lines 20-21 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a purified water” or define “a purified water” earlier in the claim.
Claims 2-17 recites “Purification method according to claim X” in line 1. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “The purification
Claim 5 recites “the normal grain size” in line 1 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a normal grain size” or define “a normal grain size” earlier in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the iodine number” in line 1 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “an iodine number” or define “an iodine number” earlier in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the inner surface” in line 1 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “an inner surface” or define “an inner surface” earlier in the claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-17 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “aerated by inflow of air from below, preferably with air bubbles” in lines 15-16. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “inflow of air from below” in line 15, and the claim also recites “preferably with air bubbles” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the purification method is used as, preferably last, stage of a purification process of a wastewater treatment plant” in lines 19-20. Since the claim contain “preferably”, the same rejection is applicable to the claim limitation. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “wherein the purification method is used as a last
Claim 1 recites “the steps can be realized in parallel and/or sequentially” in line 18. This is considered indefinite for the following reason: It is unclear as to what process sequence the term “the steps can be realized in parallel and/or sequentially” is meant to imply.
Claims 2-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S. §112 by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “preferably the partial flow” in line 3 is indefinite. This is because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “in particular from a secondary clarification tank of the sedimentation stage,” in line 3 is indefinite. This is because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “preferably between 1 and 50 µm” in line 3 is indefinite. This is because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “preferably greater than 1000 mg/g” in line 3 is indefinite. This is because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “in particular FeCl3 or FeAlCl3” in line 3 is indefinite. This is because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “the filtration” in line 1 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a filtration” or define “a filtration” earlier in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “a standard container” in line 2. This is considered indefinite for the following reason: It is unclear as to what structure the term “standard container” is meant to imply.
Claim 14 recites “the contaminated water from the biological purification path” in lines 3-4 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a contaminated water from the biological purification path” or define “a contaminated water from the biological purification path” earlier in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “in particular in a rearward portion of the aeration tank, viewed in flow direction, in particular in a region of the last third of a total length of the aeration tank” in lines 3-5 is indefinite. This is because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “in particular the adsorption agent is concentrated in the contaminated water” in lines 3-4 is indefinite. This is because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite.
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 1-5 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bott et al. (WO 2019/165389 A1, hereinafter “Bott”).
In regard to claim 1, Bott discloses a purification method for purifying contaminated water (paragraph [0001]; Fig. 12), comprising (in the embodiment shown in Fig. 12, subcomponents of the embodiment in Fig. 12 share subcomponents of the embodiments shown in Fig. 6 – Fig. 11; paragraphs [00095]-[00098]):
at least one biological purification path (a fluid purification path comprising a coagulator C/P 20, Fig. 12, a secondary coagulator PAC 30, Fig. 12, a UBZ 42, Fig. 12, and a biological processor 40, Fig. 12) as well as a filtration purification path (a fluid purification path comprising a coagulator C/P 20, Fig. 12, a secondary coagulator PAC 30, Fig. 12, and a membrane 47, Fig. 12 that includes a ceramic or polymer membrane),
wherein the filtration purification path is operated at least partially in parallel and in sequential to the biological purification path (note that the wastewater passes through BP 40 and MB 47 in parallel and in sequence) with a partial flow removed from the biological purification path (a partial flow removed from the bottom of the BP 40 is recycled to a dedicated zone for uncontrolled, thicker biofilms (UBZ 42, Fig. 12)),
wherein the purification in the filtration purification path (a fluid purification path comprising a membrane MB 47, Fig. 12) comprises the following steps:
supplying a partial flow of the biological purification path to a purification tank (a tank containing UBZ 42, BP 40, and MB 47, Fig. 12) (a partial flow from BP 40 is recycled to UBZ 42 and BP 40 via preheater 80, selector 90, and an augmentor 95);
a membrane module (a ceramic or polymer membrane filter or a disc filter in MB 47 (paragraph [00095])) is located in the purification tank (a tank containing UBZ 42, BP 40, and MB 47, Fig. 12 which also containing MB 47, Fig. 12) through which the contaminated water is filtered;
an absorption agent of activated carbon (PAC 30, Fig. 1) is added to the purification tank with the contaminated water in which the membrane module is located (PAC 30 is broadly interpreted as an extension of the purification tank), wherein the addition of the adsorption agent is realized at the raw side of the membrane module (paragraph [00096]) (the activated carbon addition point PAC 30, Fig. 12 is upstream (raw side) of the membrane module 47 MB, Fig. 12); and
the membrane module is aerated by inflow of air from below, preferably with air bubbles (air supplier 45, Fig. 12 add air to the BP 40 and MB 47 (paragraph [00096]);
wherein the adsorption agent comprises powdered activated carbon (paragraph [00097]) and wherein the steps can be realized sequentially (the fluid flow diagram in Fig. 12 shows sequential steps of purification); and
wherein the purification method is used as a stage of a purification process of a wastewater treatment plant prior to introducing the purified water into a river, lake, or the ocean (paragraph [000198]).
But Bott does not explicitly disclose the purification method is used as a last stage of a purification process of a wastewater treatment plant prior to introducing the purified water into a river, lake, or the ocean.
However, Bott discloses a biological treatment process can be used to remove constituents from water. The biological treatment process can be used in, for example, wastewater treatment, drinking water treatment, water reuse, distribution systems for drinking water, collection systems for wastewater, residential or institutional plumbing, natural or constructed wetlands, storm water treatment, agricultural buffers, or river bank filtration systems (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the purification method as a last stage of a purification process of a wastewater treatment plant prior to introducing the purified water into a river, because the water purification system comprising a biological treatment process can be used to remove constituents from water, and the biological treatment process can be used in, for example, wastewater treatment, drinking water treatment, water reuse, distribution systems for drinking water, collection systems for wastewater, residential or institutional plumbing, natural or constructed wetlands, storm water treatment, agricultural buffers, or river bank filtration systems (Bott, paragraph [0042]).
In regard to claim 2, Bott discloses the partial flow which is supplied to the filtration purification path is removed downstream of an aeration tank of the biological purification path (a partial flow removed from the bottom of the BP 40, Fig. 12 which is recycled to a dedicated zone for uncontrolled, thicker biofilms (UBZ 42, Fig. 12)), is taken at the downstream of the air supplier 45, Fig. 12), and the partial flow to be supplied to the filtration purification path is removed upstream of a secondary clarification tank of the biological purification path (the partial flow supplied to MB 47, Fig. 12 is removed upstream of the post-filtration device (PF 60, Fig. 12).
In regard to claim 3, Bott discloses in the purification in the filtration purification path precisely one membrane module is flowed through in series in the purification tank by the contaminated water (there is one membrane in MB 47, Fig. 12), wherein the contaminated water is supplied to this membrane module from a sedimentation stage (a coagulator C/P 20, Fig. 12, a secondary coagulator PAC 30, Fig. 12 which meets the recited “a sedimentation stage”), in particular from a secondary clarification tank of the sedimentation stage, without flowing through a second membrane module (paragraphs [0097]; [0098]).
Since Bott discloses a biological treatment process can be used to remove constituents from water, and the biological treatment process can be used in, for example, wastewater treatment, drinking water treatment, water reuse, distribution systems for drinking water, collection systems for wastewater, residential or institutional plumbing, natural or constructed wetlands, storm water treatment, agricultural buffers, or river bank filtration systems (paragraph [0042]), the recitation “purified water is introduced from the purification tank into a river, lake or the ocean without flowing through a further membrane module” is considered prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 4, Bott discloses the adsorption agent added in the filtration purification path comprises powdered activated carbon (paragraph [00072]).
Regarding the limitation of “powdered activated carbon produced from wood and/or peat”, per MPEP, it is acknowledged that the powdered activated carbon recited in claim 4 is product-by-process claims which are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, but the structure (i.e., physical and chemical properties) implied by the steps. During the examination of the claimed invention, the powdered activated carbon recited in claim 4 is only limited (characterized) by chemcial compostions/properties of powdered activated carbon as recited in claim 4 and is not limited by the source of making the powdered activated carbon. See MPEP 2113.
In regard to claim 8, Bott discloses an absorption agent of activated carbon (PAC 30, Fig. 1) is added to the purification tank, wherein the PAC 30 include a device that includes a coagulation method, including, for example, a device that adds a poly-aluminum chloride-based coagulant or other coagulant that has, for example, low generation of waste sludge in a wide pH range (paragraph [00072]). This directs the adsorption agent that is used in the filtration purification path is suspended or dissolved in water prior to adding as recited.
In regard to claims 9 and 10, Bott discloses filtration purification path (a fluid purification path comprising a coagulator C/P 20, Fig. 12, a secondary coagulator PAC 30, Fig. 12, and a membrane 47, Fig. 12 that includes a ceramic or polymer membrane). Bott discloses the PAC 30 can include a device that includes a coagulation method, including, for example, a device that adds a poly-aluminum chloride-based coagulant (paragraphs [00072]).
In regard to claims 11 and 12, Bott discloses wastewater comprises a micropollutant, a nanopollutant (page 62, claim 11) which directs a necessity of the membrane module being a microfiltration, preferably an ultrafiltration. Bott discloses membrane can be hollow fiber, flat sheet, flat plate (paragraph [000147]).
In regard to claim 13, Bott discloses the purification tank (a tank containing MB 47, Fig. 12) of the filtration purification path is a standard container.
In regard to claim 14, Bott discloses a volume flow of purified water returned from a secondary clarification tank (a pre-treater 80, Fig. 12) is supplied to the purification tank of the filtration purification path in addition to the contaminated water from the biological purification path (it is noted that both the recycled water from 80, Fig. 12 and contaminate water 5, Fig. 12 via 20, 30, 43, Fig. 12 is supplied to a purification tank containing MB 47, Fig. 12).
In regard to claim 15, Bott discloses the addition of the adsorption agent at PAC 30, Fig. 12 via UBZ 42, Fig. 12 to the purification tank of the filtration purification path is carried out. Since the recycled purified water from 80, Fig. 12 is also transported to the purification tank adjacent to the UBZ 42, Fig. 12, the recitation of claim 15 is considered an obvious technique that can be practiced by one skilled in the art, thereby the teachings of Bott render the recitation of claim 15 prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 16, in other embodiment shown in Fig. 6, Bott discloses the addition of the adsorption agent at PAC 30, Fig. 6 to the purification tank of the filtration purification path is realized right next to the BP 40, Fig. 6 which comprises an air supplier 45, Fig. 6. Since the recycled purified water from 80, Fig. 12 is also transported to the purification tank adjacent to the PAC 30, Fig. 12, the recitation of claim 16 is considered an obvious technique that can be practiced by one skilled in the art, thereby the teachings of Bott render the recitation of claim 16 prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 17, in other embodiment shown in Fig. 6, Bott discloses a return volume flow is returned from the purification tank of the filtration purification path (a water from a solid-liquid separator SLS 50, Fig. 6) into the biological purification path (BP 40, Fig. 6). Since adsorption agent (powered activated carbon particles) is used in a coagulation process (paragraph [00072]), it is reasonably expected that the adsorption agent is concentrated in the contaminated water as recited in claimed invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bott, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saeidi et al. (Effects of Powder Activated Carbon Particle Size on Adsorption Capacity and Mechanical Properties of the Semi Activated Carbon Fiber, Fibers and Polymers 2015, Vol.16, No.3, 543-549, hereinafter “Saeidi”).
In regard to claims 5-7, Bott does not explicitly disclose a nominal grain size, an iodine number and a surface area of the powdered activated carbon as recited.
However, Saeidi discloses effects of activated carbon particle size on adsorption and mechanical properties of the semi activated carbon fiber (SACF) (page 543, Abstract). Saeidi discloses embodiment of activated carbon particles having a particle size of 50-150 microns, a surface area of greater than 1,000 m2/g, and an iodine number greater than 1350 mg/g (page 544, Table 1) which renders the recited ranges of nominal grain size, iodine number and surface area of the powdered activated carbon prima facie obvious.
It is noted that both the Bott and Saeidi references direct a powdered activated carbon used as an adsorbent.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Bott, to provide the powdered activated carbon having a nominal grain size, an iodine number and a surface area of the powdered activated carbon as recited, because the powdered activated carbon used as an adsorbent having a particle size of 50-150 microns, a surface area of greater than 1,000 m2/g, and an iodine number greater than 1350 mg/g is known in the art as taught by Saeidi (page 544, Table 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. 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, In Suk 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.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights