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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method of treating a compound to inactivate, disinfect or degrade the compound (claim 2.) Applicant, however, only uses atrazine (ATZ) for testing of degradation by PDS. Therefore, it appears that applicant may not have possession of the claimed invention, that is treating of the generic “compound,” and the species listed in the dependent claims such as water, pesticide, herbicide, pharmaceuticals, etc., to any beneficial effect, like disinfect, degrade or deactivate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over, Wang et al., “ Activation of peroxydisulfate via photothermal synergistic strategy for wastewater treatment: Efficiency and mechanism,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 436 (2022) 129224.
Claims are directed to treating a compound (water, etc.: claims 12-17) using light-activated peroxydisulfate.
Claims 3-10 recite the reactive oxygen species generated when light activates PDS. These species are generated naturally by the breakdown of PDS by light, which is inherent in the process, and therefore not patentable.
Wang teaches in the introduction that use of PDS in advanced oxidation process (AOP) for oxidative decomposition of contaminants in water is known in the art. Wang teaches, “Generally, PDS can be activated by various methods, which can simply be divided into physical activation (photolysis, thermolysis, sonolysis,) and chemical activation (… catalysis)” [Citations omitted.] Further, wang teaches, “Although the activation of PS with visible light can be achieved by introducing a special catalyst, the potential environmental risk of secondary pollution caused by the catalyst still needs to be addressed,” and “in other words, full utilization of near-infrared light and visible light of sunlight is the key to efficient activation of PDS by sunlight irradiation.” That is, Wang identifies the need for efficient activation of PDS by sunlight alone, without a catalyst or another energy source.
Wang proceeds to show degradation of fulvic acid (FA; a natural compound from the degradation of organic matter in soil) as an example for AOP. Section 3.3.1, and figures 3a-b and 5a-d show FA degradation studies. Wang shows that PDS can be activated using simulated sunlight alone, and FA can be degraded or removed using PDS activated by sunlight. This would anticipate claims 1-11 and 18-20.
For claims 12-17, the process is inherent, just like applicant’s leap from a showing of ATZ degradation by activated PDS that all the listed compounds can be treated. Inherency: MPEP 2112 and 2112.02 (process claims.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights