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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/21/26 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The NPL document is not in English.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Paragraph 64 of the printed publication mentions the reference number 40.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 10 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 8, 11-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi et al. JP 2006-223921 in view of Abdelkader et al. FR 3075780 and Norit Datasheet.
Claim 8, Atsushi teaches a method for treating water for the purpose of reducing the content of organic matter, or micropollutants and of pathogenic agents therein, comprising: a step of supplying water to be treated via a pipe (1) directly into a membrane reactor (3) containing at least one submerged filtration membrane (2), a step of brining the water in contact with an adsorbent material in the membrane reactor, a step of filtering, by the membrane, the water containing the adsorbent material in the membrane reactor, stirring the mixture of water and adsorbent material, via (4), within the membrane reactor during the filtration step, a step of extracting treated water, via (6), wherein the adsorbent material includes activated carbon, the concentration of activated carbon in the membrane reactor is maintained between 5-50 g/L and no other granular or particulate material other than the activated carbon is used in the reactor, the stirring of the mixture of water and the activated carbon in the membrane reactor during the filtration step being at least partially carried out by air injection into the mixture (pg. 4) and being sufficiently vigorous to avoid the deposit of activated carbon on the filtration membrane (pg. 2-5). Atsushi teaches the activate carbon being a powder activated carbon and does not teach the recited micro grains of activated carbon or the rate of air injection.
Abdelkader teaches a method for treating water comprising: a step of supplying water to be treated via a pipe (1) directly into a reactor (2) with a further use of a submerged membrane (pg. 5), a step of bringing the water in contact with an adsorbent material in the reactor, a step of filtering, by the membrane, the water containing the adsorbent material in the membrane reactor, stirring the mixture of water and adsorbent material within the reactor, a step of extracting treated water, the adsorbent material (Norit GAC830, table 1) including micro grains of activated carbon having a real density of at least 0.45 (Norit datasheet), settling velocity of 20-60 m/h (clm 3), a specific surface area of 1150 m2/g (Norit datasheet), an average particle size of 800-1400 micron (pg. 4), less than 5% by volume of the grains have a size of less than 600 microns (Norit datasheet) (pg. 3-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the micro grain activated carbon of Abdelkader in place of the powder activated carbon of Atsushi because micro-grain have an intermediate size between powdered coal and grain coal and their adsorption characteristics are very close to those of powdered coals, much more advantageous than those of activated carbon grains and the porous structure of micro-grain carbon covers a wide spectrum of pore sizes which promotes the kinetics of adsorption (pg. 4-5). Additionally, the micro grains of Abdelkader are able to be regenerated (pg. 3, 5). Atsushi teaches the use of powder activated carbon has a particle size that is larger than the particles size of the membrane and has a high adsorption capacity (pg. 4). Thus, the substitution of the micro grains of Abdelkader would likewise provide for the particles to be larger than those of the membrane and having a similar adsorption capacity. 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).
Regarding rate of air injection, the prior art to Atsushi teaches the air being used to clean the membrane but does not teach a particular rate of air flow. The recited flow rate of air is a recitation of an optimization of the flow to achieve the desired purpose of cleaning the membrane and preventing particulates from adhering to the membrane, which is the same objective in the prior art. [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 11 and 12, Atsushi further teaches air supplied but does not specifically teach if the air is injected continuously or sequenced (pg. 4). Both continuous and sequenced injection of air are common in the art and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14, Abdelkader further teaches a step of extracting spent micro grains of activated carbon from the reactor, draining the activated carbon and regenerating the drained activated carbon (pg. 5).
Claim 15, Abdelkader teaches the use of Norit 830 which has a surface area of 1150 m2/g but does not teach a surface area between 1500-2500 m2/g. The adsorption capabilities of activated carbon are directly influenced by the surface area of the activated carbon and therefore is a well-known result effective variable property of activated carbon, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the recitation of a higher range of surface area is a recitation of an optimization of the surface area to achieve a desired adsorption capability of the activated carbon. [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 16, Atsushi teaches the concentration of the activate carbon is between 5-50 g/L and the recited range of claim 16 falls within the range taught by the prior art.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi et al. JP 2006-223921 in view of Abdelkader et al. FR 3075780 and Norit Datasheet as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gaid et al. US 10,486,987.
Claim 9, Atsushi in view of Abdelkader and Norit teaches the method of claim 1 but do not teach a step of injecting ozone into the water passing through the pipe supplying the water to be treated.
Gaid teaches a method for treating water comprising: supplying water to be treated via a pipe (1) directly into a membrane reactor (40) containing a submerged filtration membrane (41), bringing the water into contact with an adsorbent material in the membrane reactor, filtering the water containing the adsorbent material via the membrane, stirring the mixture of water and adsorbent within the membrane reactor during the filtration step, and a step of injecting ozone (at 2) into the water passing through the pipe supplying the water to be treated to the membrane reactor (fig. 1, col. 5, lines 30-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to inject ozone to oxidize the molecules to be eliminated and improves the elimination of endocrine disrupters and medicinal residues and eliminates certain algal toxins and malodorous molecules (col. 5, lines 30-45). Gaid does not teach a venturi injector. Venturi injectors are well-known in the art and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10, Gaid teaches ozone is injected but does not teach the rate of injection. The rate of injection is a recitation of the optimization which one of ordinary skill would easily arrive at with routine experimentation to determine the proper amount of ozone to achieve the desired oxidation of the waste water. Too little ozone would not achieve sufficient oxidation and too much would be wasteful, adding extra expense with not further benefit. [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 13, Atsushi in view of Abdelkader and Norit teaches the method of claim 1 but do not teach a step of recirculating the mixture of water and activated carbon.
Gaid further teaches a step of recirculating the mixture of water and activated carbon within the membrane reactor contributing to the stirring of the mixture (col. 4, lines 57-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a recirculation as a way to provide further stirring of the mixture to improve homogeneity of the concentration of the carbon in the reactor (col. 4, lines 57-67).
Conclusion
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