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 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 1-10 are 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 1 recites the organic pollutants contain “a strong electron-withdrawing functional group”. The term “strong” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is not an art recognized definition for the term strong electron withdrawing functional group and therefore the precise metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Additionally, certain functional groups may have a stronger electron withdrawing ability under certain conditions but not under other conditions. The recited compounds in claim 8 share the functional group of an amide. An amide can have an electron withdrawing ability under certain conditions. The particular property of the compound is dependent on where that compound is located and therefore the precise metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined as the recited property may change depending on conditions and not on the particular compound.
The additional claims are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. CN 104098228 and Kirpalani et al. US 2021/0087079.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8, He teaches a method of wastewater treatment comprising: an advanced oxidation process, comprising a Fenton oxidation comprising oxidizing the organic pollutants with hydrogen peroxide as an oxidant under catalysis of ferrous ions, that pretreats wastewater to oxidize organic pollutants within the wastewater and a biodegradation process, comprising an activated sludge treatment, that treats the pretreated wastewater to remove the oxidized organic pollutants, where the organic pollutants contain amide functional groups (abstract, par 2, 13-19, 31). He does not specifically teach the organic pollutants are unsaturated compounds containing a strong electron withdrawing functional group.
Kirpalani teaches that Fenton oxidation treatments are used in the field of wastewater treatment, allowing for the removal of organic compounds including pharmaceuticals and carbamazepine (a cyclic unsaturated compound containing an amide) (par 111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of He to remove carbamazepine because the use of a Fenton oxidation treatment is a known in the wastewater treatment art, as taught by Kirpalani, and the removal of the carbamazepine prior to the biodegradation process allows for the removal of the toxic and harmful substance, improves the biodegradability of the wastewater to achieve standards for discharge of the wastewater (par 3).
Claim 3, He teaches a molar ratio of hydrogen peroxide to ferrous ion that falls within the recited range (par 29).
Claim 4, He does not teach a particular concentration of the hydrogen peroxide and ferrous ions. The particular concentration would be readily recognized as a result effective variable to one of ordinary skill in the art as the ferrous ions act as a catalyst for the hydrogen peroxide and to achieve the desired oxidation of the organic compounds the proper concentrations would be adjusted by one of ordinary skill in the art by routine experimentation. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Claim 5, He further teaches the Fenton oxidation is carried out under a condition of an initial pH of the wastewater of 1-5 (par 19).
Claims 9-10 recite the effect of the method of claim 1, namely the degradation rate and mineralization rate of the organic pollutant. He in view of Kirpalani teaches the method of claim and therefore, the effects, recited in claims 9-10, are considered inherent to the method of claim 1 and would be inherent in the method of He in view of Kirpalani.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. CN 104098228 and Kirpalani et al. US 2021/0087079 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al. CN 101734825.
He in view of Kirpalani teaches the method of claim 1 and He further teaches the biodegradation process is carried out with a biological reactor (par 28) but does not specifically teach a sequencing batch reactor.
Gao teaches a method of wastewater treatment comprising: an advanced oxidation process (a Fenton oxidation process with hydrogen peroxide and ferrous ions), that pretreats the wastewater to oxidize organic pollutants within the wastewater, and a biodegradation process (using activated sludge and carried out in a sequencing batch reactor comprising four stages, inflow, aeration, sedimentation and outflow) to remove the oxidized organic pollutants (abstract, par 9, 12-13, 19-20, 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sequencing batch reactor of Gao because it further removes organic pollutants in the wastewater, removes nitrogen and meets the discharge standard after processing (abstract). The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 116282710 Yuan et al.
CN 105884152 Jin et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights