DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-17 are pending.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 ends with two periods, this should be replaced with one. Appropriate correction is 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 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim states “at least one oxidant in gaseous form and/or active gas” It is not clear how an active gas is distinct from an oxidant. Paragraph 19 of the published specification states “dissolving active gas (vapourized H2O2)…active gas compound (oxidant)” therefore it appears that the active gas is the oxidant. The claim further states “thereby obtaining…oxidant microbubbles…and/or…the at least one oxidant…” Therefore it appears that the at least one oxidant is required to be mixed in the at least one sparger because it is required in both alternatives to be “mixed with the aqueous liquid stream”. The phrase “and/or” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the claims are open to not including the oxidant. For the purpose of examination at least one oxidant will be interpreted as required and the “active gas” will be interpreted as optional.
Regarding Claim 3:
The claim refers to “each sparger device”. The term “each” implies multiple spargers are required. However claim 1 requires “at least one sparger”. It is not clear if multiple spargers are being required or not.
Line 2 states “a respective storage vessel”. Lines 4, 6, and 8 refer to “the storage vessel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the storage vessel” within the claims. It is not clear if they are the same storage vessels or not.
Regarding Claim 4:
The claim refers to “the storage vessel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 9:
The claim refers to “the respective storage vessel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. Antecedent basis is provided in claim 3, claim 9 depends from claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11:
The claim states “ a respective storage vessel…after each sparger device”. However the claim previously requires “a sparer device”, therefore it is not clear if additional spargers are being required or not.
Regarding Claim 13:
The claim refers to “the storage vessel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. There is only support for a “respective storage vessel”.
The claim refers to “it”. It is not clear what element in the claims is being referred to by “it”.
Regarding Claim 16:
The claim refers to “the optional gas storage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. This limitation further renders the claim indefitne because it is not clear if the gas storage is being required, if the fan is only required if the gas storage is present, or something else.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from indefinite claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gervais et al, the article “Comparative efficiency of three advanced oxidation processed or thiosalts oxidation in mine-impacted water” (cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 1:
Gervais teaches the method for oxidation of sulphur oxyanions contained in a stream of aqueous liquid, wherein in the method an aqueous liquid stream containing sulphur oxyanions is mixed, in at least one sparger device (sparging rate is given therefore a sparging device is inherently used) (see Abstract), with at least one oxidant in gaseous form (ozone) and/or active gas, thereby obtaining, mixed within the aqueous liquid stream, oxidant microbubbles (ozone microbubbles) (see abstract) containing reactive radicals species (hydroxyl radicles form in the presence of O3) (see section 3.2.1 pH influence on S species evolution) in contact with dissolved or condensed oxidant and the aqueous liquid stream (zone microbubbles are added to the effluent) (See section 2.3.2 O3-microbbules), and/or reactive radicals species in contact with the at least one oxidant in gaseous form and the aqueous liquid stream, the dissolved or condensed oxidant and the reactive radicals species, and/or the at least one oxidant in gaseous form and the reactive radicals species, are allowed to contact sulphur oxyanions (S2O32-) contained in the aqueous liquid stream and to oxidize sulphur oxyanions contained in the aqueous liquid stream to sulphate and/or to other sulphur oxidation states, by an oxidative reaction of the sulphur oxyanions with the reactive radicals species (goal to correlate the oxidation of the thiosalts…) (see section 2.3.2), thereby forming sulphate and/or other sulphur oxidation states containing aqueous liquid stream, wherein the oxidant is one or more of hydrogen peroxide, oxygen, ozone (ozone) (see Abstract, section 2.3.2, section 3.2), and air; a mixture of N2 and at least one of hydrogen peroxide, oxygen, and ozone, or a mixture of air and at least one of hydrogen peroxide, oxygen, and ozone; and wherein the active gas is sodium hypochlorite, or peracid (active gas is not required).
Regarding Claim 2:
Gervais teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method is performed in acidic, neutral or alkaline conditions (pH from 7.30 to 2.54) (see section 3.2.1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Gervais teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the reactive radicals species are carbonate radicals, hydroxyl radicals (see section 3.2.1), and/or other reactive radicals species having a reactivity lower than that of the hydroxyl radicals.
Regarding Claim 8:
Gervais teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein in the method SO32-, S2O32-, S3O62-, S4O63-, and/or other sulphur oxyanions are oxidized to sulphate and/or to other sulphur oxidation states (S2O32- to SO42-) (see section 3.2.1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gervais et al, the article “Comparative efficiency of three advanced oxidation processed or thiosalts oxidation in mine-impacted water” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fan et al (CN 106745654, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 3:
Gervais teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a respective storage vessel (ozone is distributed in the effluent, therefore there is inherently a vessel in connection with the sparger) (see section 2.3.2) is located in fluid connection after each sparger device, wherein sulphate and/or other sulphur oxidation states containing effluent in liquid form is obtained from the storage vessel (oxidation occurs in the vessel) (see section 2.3.2).
Gervais does teach wherein the method comprises discharging the sulphate and/or other sulphur oxidation states containing effluent in liquid form from the storage vessel, or feeding the sulphate and/or other sulphur oxidation states containing effluent in liquid form from the storage vessel to a next oxidation segment.
Fan teaches a method for oxidation of sulphur comprising a respective storage vessel (air lift oxide A: tank 2) (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph fig. 1) is located in fluid connection after each mixing device (jet mixer 1) (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph, fig. 1), wherein sulphate and/or other sulphur oxidation states containing effluent in liquid form is obtained from the storage vessel (see pg. 2, 2nd paragraph), wherein the method comprises discharging the sulphate and/or other sulphur oxidation states containing effluent in liquid form from the storage vessel, or feeding the sulphate and/or other sulphur oxidation states containing effluent in liquid form from the storage vessel to a next oxidation segment (jet mixer B) (see pg. 2, 4th paragraph, fig. 1).
Gervais and Fan are analogous inventions in the art of sulphur oxidation. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to add the step of transferring the effluent of Gervais to a next oxidation segment, as disclosed by Fan because the use of graded oxidation reduces the consumption of oxidizing agent (see Fan, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 4:
Gervais, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein unused oxidant is recycled in gaseous form from the storage vessel to a gas storage (any location that holds the gas is considered to be “gas storage”) containing the at least one oxidant in gaseous form (see Fan, fig. 1, annotated below) or to a vaporizor unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9:
Gervais teaches the method according to claim 1.
Gervais does not teach wherein the sparger device forms an oxidation segment with the respective storage vessel, wherein two or more oxidation segments are arranged in parallel and/or in series.
Fan teaches a mixing device (jet mixer 1) (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph, fig. 1) forms an oxidation segment with the respective storage vessel, wherein two or more oxidation segments are arranged in parallel and/or in series (see fig. 1, Abstract).
Gervais and Fan are analogous inventions in the art of sulphur oxidation. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to add to add the oxidation segment in series with the oxidation segment of Gervais, as disclosed by Fan because the use of graded oxidation reduces the consumption of oxidizing agent (see Fan, Abstract).
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gervais et al, the article “Comparative efficiency of three advanced oxidation processed or thiosalts oxidation in mine-impacted water”.
Regrading Claim 7:
Gervais teaches the method according to claim 1.
Gervais does not teach wherein the oxidant is hydrogen peroxide, a mixture of N2 and hydrogen peroxide, or a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and air in the same embodiment as a sparging device.
Gervais further teaches hydrogen peroxide as an oxidant for sulphur oxyanion oxidation (see section 3.3 and 2.3.3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the oxidant in the ozone embodiment of Gervais with hydrogen peroxide, as disclosed by Gervais, because it is the simple substitution of one known oxidant with another known oxidant, obviously resulting in the oxidation of the sulphur compounds, with an expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 10:
Gervais teaches the method of claim 1.
Gervais is silent as to the temperature at which the oxidant is fed to the sparger device.
Gervais further teaches that the temperature effects the oxidation reaction (“thiosalt oxidation slows down at low temperatures”) (see section 3.3.2.1, Table 5, abstract). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the temperature and use a temperature between 10-100°C in order to optimize the oxidation reaction. “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 11, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gervais et al, the article “Comparative efficiency of three advanced oxidation processed or thiosalts oxidation in mine-impacted water” in view of Fan et al (CN 106745654, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 11:
Gervais teaches the apparatus for oxidation of sulphur oxyanions contained in a stream of aqueous liquid, the apparatus comprising a sparger device (sparging rate is given therefore a sparging device is inherently used) (see Abstract) configured to, in acidic, neutral or alkaline conditions ( pH from 7.30 to 2.54) (see section 3.2.1), mix an aqueous liquid stream containing sulphur oxyanions (thiosalts), with at least one oxidant (ozone) in gaseous form, obtain, mixed within the aqueous liquid stream, oxidant microbubbles (ozone microbubbles) containing reactive radicals species (hydroxyl) in contact with dissolved or condensed oxidant and the aqueous liquid stream (see section 3.2.1), and/or reactive radicals species in contact with the at least one oxidant in gaseous form and the aqueous liquid stream, and allow the dissolved or condensed oxidant and the reactive radicals species, and/or the at least one oxidant in gaseous form and the reactive radicals species, to contact sulphur oxyanions contained in the aqueous liquid stream and to oxidize sulphur oxyanions contained in the aqueous liquid stream to sulphate and/or to other sulphur oxidation states, by an oxidative reaction of the sulphur oxyanions with the reactive radicals species, to form sulphate and/or other sulphur oxidation states containing aqueous liquid stream (S2O32- to SO42-) (see section 3.2.1), wherein the apparatus comprises a respective storage vessel (vessel is inherent to hold the effluent and oxidant mixed together) located in fluid connection after each sparger device.
Gervais does not teach wherein the storage vessel comprises a discharge pipeline for discharging sulphate and/or other sulphur oxidation states containing effluent in liquid form from the storage vessel, or for feeding the effluent in liquid form from the storage vessel to a next oxidation segment.
Fan teaches an apparatus for oxidation of sulphur comprising a respective storage vessel (air lift oxide A: tank 2) (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph fig. 1) is located in fluid connection after each mixing device (jet mixer 1) (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph, fig. 1), wherein the storage vessel comprises a discharge pipeline (waste gas outlet 10) (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph, fig. 1) for discharging sulphate and/or other sulphur oxidation states containing effluent in liquid form from the storage vessel, or for feeding the effluent in liquid form from the storage vessel to a next oxidation segment (jet mixer B) (see pg. 2, 4th paragraph, fig. 1).
Gervais and Fan are analogous inventions in the art of sulphur oxidation. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to add the discharge pipeline and next oxidation segment to the storage vessel of Gervais, disclosed by Fan because the use of graded oxidation reduces the consumption of oxidizing agent (see Fan, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 13:
Gervais, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein it comprises recycling means to recycle unused oxidant in gaseous form from the storage vessel to an optional gas storage (any location that holds gas is considered to be “gas storage”) containing the at least one oxidant in gaseous form or to a vaporizor unit (see Fan, fig. 1, annotated above).
Regarding Claim 14:
Gervais, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the sparger device forms an oxidation segment with the respective storage vessel, wherein the apparatus comprises two or more oxidation segments arranged in parallel and/or in series (see Fan fig. 1, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 15:
Gervais, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein a pump (NikuniKTM32N brand pump ) is configured to feed the aqueous liquid stream containing sulphur oxyanions to the sparger device (see Gervais section 2.3.2).
Regarding Claim 17:
Gervais, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the aqueous liquid stream containing sulphur oxyanions is mixed, in the at least one sparger device, with the at least one oxidant in gaseous form (see Gervais section 2.3.2).
Gervais does not teach wherein the oxidant is hydrogen peroxide, a mixture of N2 and hydrogen peroxide, or a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and air in the same embodiment as a sparging device.
Gervais further teaches hydrogen peroxide as an oxidant for sulphur oxyanion oxidation (see section 3.3 and 2.3.3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the oxidant in the ozone embodiment of Gervais with hydrogen peroxide, as disclosed by Gervais, because it is the simple substitution of one known oxidant with another known oxidant, obviously resulting in the oxidation of the sulphur compounds, with an expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gervais et al, the article “Comparative efficiency of three advanced oxidation processed or thiosalts oxidation in mine-impacted water” and Fan et al (CN 106745654, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Krishnan et al (US 2016/0293978).
Regarding Claim 16:
Gervais, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to claim 11.
Gervais does not teach a fan is configured to feed the at least one oxidant in gaseous form from the optional gas storage to the sparger device.
Krishnan teaches a fan to feed an oxidant and that the fan can be used in place of a pump (see para. 0036).
Gervais, as modified, and Krishnan are analogous inventions in the art of feeding oxidants. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the fan of Krishnan to the gas storage device od Gervais (as modified by Fan) because it is the simple addition of a known device for moving gases to a device the required the flow of gas, obviously resulting in the flow of gas from the gas storage to the sparger, with an expectation of success. 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 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 1/14/2026