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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 23-27 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.
Claim 23 recites the membrane reactor contains “no activated sludge and being free of any coagulant or flocculant” and “no coagulant, flocculant, or other granular or particulate material other than said micrograins of activated carbon is added to or present within the membrane reactor”. These limitations are not supported in the specification as originally filed. The specification, paragraph 2, states,
“More specifically, the invention relates to a method for treating water in order to reduce its organic matter content, including, where appropriate, its micropollutant content (pesticides, endocrine disruptors, drug residues, industrial product residues, etc.) and to eliminate pathogens (viruses, bacteria and parasites).”
There is no recitation in the specification that restricts any type of potential pollutant that is to be removed or treated by the method for treating water. Activated sludge is bacteria that is used to treat wastewater. Paragraph 2 specifically states that bacteria is eliminated by the claimed method. Additionally, flocculants can be organic matter, which is also specifically stated as being removed by the claimed method. Paragraph 45 specifically states that large organic molecules are present in the water to be treated and are broken down to smaller molecules. These are considered particulate matter that is clearly present in the reactor. Paragraph 65 states that organic matter is deposited on the surface of the membrane and is removed by stirring the water mixture. The organic matter deposited on and removed from the surface of the membrane is clearly a particulate that is present in the reactor. For all these reasons, claim 23 recites new matter.
Claim 27 recites the regenerating step is carried out thermally so as to restore substantially all of the original capacity of the activated carbon. This limitation is not supported by the specification as originally filed. Paragraph 51 of the specification states:
“The microgranular activated carbon thus drained can then undergo a regeneration phase, preferably thermally, in order to restore most of its original adsorption capacity and so that it can be reused within the method according to the invention.”
There is no recitation of a thermal reactivation that restore substantially all of the original capacity and therefore, the subject matter of claim 27 constitutes new matter.
The additional claims are rejected as depending from claim 23.
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 bringing 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. Applicant did not traverse the taking of official notice and therefore, the official notice is taken as admitted prior 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 activated 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. Applicant did not traverse the taking of official notice and therefore, the taking of official notice is taken as admitted prior 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 wastewater. 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).
Claim 17, Atsushi teaches a method for treating water to reduce the content of organic matter, micropollutants and of pathogenic agents in the water, comprising: supplying water to be treated via a pipe (1) directly into a membrane reactor (3) containing at least one submerged filtration membrane (2), bringing the water into contact with an adsorbent material in the membrane reactor, consisting of 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, filtering, by the membrane, the water containing the activated carbon in the membrane reactor, during the filtering, injecting air into a lower portion of the membrane reactor (pg. 4) agitating the water and activated carbon sufficiently to maintain the activated carbon is suspension and inhibit deposition of the activated carbon on the membrane (pg. 2-5), extracting treated water, via (6), through the membrane. Atsushi teaches the activate carbon being a powder activated carbon and does not teach the recited micro grains of activated carbon, the rate of air injection or recirculating water and activated carbon.
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 have 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).
Gaid teaches a step of recirculating a mixture of water and activated carbon from an upper portion of a membrane reactor to a lower portion of the membrane reactor to contribute to the stirring of the mixture (fig. 1, 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).
Claim 18, 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. Applicant did not traverse the taking of official notice and therefore, the taking of official notice is taken as admitted prior art.
Claims 19-20, 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 wastewater. 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 21, 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 22, Gaid further teaches the ozone may be introduced before the water enters the reactor (col. 5, lines 33-37). The recitation of the ozone contributing to reactivation of adsorption sites of the activated carbon in the membrane is a recitation of the effect of the ozone on the activated carbon and would be inherent to the process of adding ozone to the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Atsushi does include the use of other granular or particulate material other than the activated carbon. Applicant argues that Atsushi teaches the process treats a mixture of water, activated sludge, activated carbon and flocculant within the reactor and uses a membrane to filter the mixture. Atsushi does teach this particular embodiment of treatment. However, Atsushi also explicitly states,
“In order to achieve the above object, in the present invention, the liquid to be treated is mixed with activated sludge in a treatment tank, and after activated sludge treatment, immersed in the treatment tank or in a tank different from the treatment tank. A water treatment method in which the activated sludge mixed liquid is solid-liquid separated by an installed membrane separate, wherein activated carbon is added to at least one of the treated liquid or the activated sludge mixed liquid…” (pg.3 emphasis added)
Atsushi clearly teaches the method for treating water may occur after the activated sludge treatment, in a separate tank from the activated sludge treatment and that the activated carbon is added to the treated liquid, namely the treated liquid from the activated sludge treatment. Any granular or particulate material present in the reactor is simply pollutant material present within the water to be treated. Thus, the granular/particulate material is not used in the method but is rather removed by the method. The only particulate material used in the reactor tank is the activated carbon, which is there to remove pollutants. The flocculant added to the activated sludge will form flocs of organic matter and activated sludge is bacteria (pathogenic agents). Thus, the method of Atsushi treats water to reduce organic matter and pathogenic agents as required by the claim as the water that is removed through the membrane will have reduced organic matter and bacteria therein. Applicant argues that the flocculant of Atsushi forms a solid precipitant/floc that is a granular or particulate material that is present and functioning in the reactor. While the precipitant would indeed be present in the reactor, it is not functioning as part of the method but is rather removed by the method. Applicant’s own disclosure indicates that organic matter is deposited on the membrane (par 65). Thus, particulate material is clearly present in the reactor. That particulate is removed by the membrane, just as it is in the method Atsushi. Therefore, Atsushi teaches the method as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-27 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record to Atsushi and Abdelkader teach as obvious the method of claim 23, as detailed in the rejection of similar claims 8. Atsushi does not teach the membrane reactor containing no activated sludge and being free of any coagulant or flocculant or that no other coagulant, flocculant or other granular or particulate material, other than the activated carbon is added to or present within the membrane reactor nor would it have been obvious to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
The additional claims are allowable as depending from claim 23.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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