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 § 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) 1-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. CN 104098228, Kirpalani et al. US 2021/0087079 and Gao et al. CN 101734825.
Claims 1-2, 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 under a condition of an initial pH of the wastewater being 1-5 (par 19), 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 from the group of compounds recited.
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).
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).
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).
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 and Gao 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 and Gao.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that He does not suggest or imply that the method disclosed therein could be used to remove the specific unsaturated compounds recited in claim 1. He does teach the method is used to remove amides. All of the compounds recited in claim 1 contain an amide as the main functional group. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be led to believe that the method of He would be applicable to the recited compounds. Applicant is correct that He does not teach removing the specific compounds recited in claim 1. However, Kirpalani explicitly teaches that a Fenton oxidation process, as in He, can be used to remove organic pollutants (par 10) and explicitly states carbamazepine as an organic pollutant that may be removed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of He to remove carbamazepine, as taught by Kirpalani. He teaches the biodegradation process is carried out with a biological reactor (par 28) but does not specifically teach a sequencing batch reactor. The use of a SBR is known in the art, as demonstrated by Gao, for an advanced oxidation process, namely a Fenton oxidation process. While Gao uses the SBR to remove different types of pollutants one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize an SBR as a typical biological reactor for carrying out a Fenton oxidation process to remove organic pollutants. For all these reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine the teachings of the prior art, for the reasons stated in the action above, to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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