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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-11 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 15, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107352703 A (CN 703) in view of Demeneix, B. and Hahn, M.E., 2020. Human Health and Ocean Pollution. Annals of Global Health, 86(1), p.151 (hereinafter Hahn) and Horvath, G., Szalay, Z., Simo, F., Salgo, K., Krcma, F. and Matejova, S., 2019. Recycling of a wastewater to iron oxide micro structures. Environmental Research Communications, 1(8), p.085001 (hereinafter Horvath).
Regarding claim 1, CN 703 discloses a method for treating wastewater comprising providing wastewater (see CN 703 paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0012-0015 (CN 703 discloses a method and system for removal heavy metals from groundwater via the combination of electrochemical/electrocoagulation process and a ferrite precipitation process (see CN 703 paragraphs 0009, 0012-0015).).
CN 703 discloses forming aggregates in the wastewater using iron ions (see CN 703 paragraphs 0009, 0012, 0014, 0029, 0037 (CN 703 discloses that flocs are formed during the electrochemical process wherein “the iron at the anode to dissolve and iron ions to enter the water body” (see CN 703 paragraph 0012; see also paragraph 0037).)
CN 703 discloses separating supernatant and the aggregates from the wastewater (see CN 703 paragraphs 0013, 0018, 0023, 0037 (CN 703 disclose using a membrane filter for solid-liquid separation (see CN 703 paragraph 0013).).
CN 703 discloses subjecting the aggregates to aging (see CN 703 paragraphs 0013, 0018, 0037 (CN 703 discloses “solid material separated by the membrane enters the aging reactor for aging” (see CN 703 paragraph 0018).).
CN 703 does not disclose wastewater containing microplastics.
Hahn discloses “[P]ollution of the oceans is widespread, it is worsening, and its geographic extent is expanding [26, 27, 30]. Ocean pollution is a complex and ever-changing mixture of chemicals and biological materials that includes plastic waste, petroleum-based pollutants, toxic metals, manufactured chemicals, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and a noxious stew of nitrogen, phosphorus, fertilizer, and sewage” (see Hahn page 4/The Current State of Ocean Pollution). Hahn discloses “Chemical and plastic pollutants have become ubiquitous in the earth’s oceans and contaminate seas and marine organisms from the high Arctic to the abyssal depths (see Hahn page 35/right column/Conclusions 1.). Hahn discloses that the European Environment Agency has established that “pollution by toxic metals, industrial chemicals and plastic wastes is at problem levels in 96% of the Baltic Sea, in 91% of the Black Sea, in 87% of the Mediterranean Sea, and in 75% of the North-East Atlantic Ocean [27]. Pollution by plastic waste has become a global threat” (see Hahn page 5/section The Current State of Ocean Pollution; see also Hahn page 4/figure 1; page 6/Toxic Metal Pollutants – page 8/Prevention of Mercury Pollution & page 7/figures 3-4; page 9/ Plastic Pollution of the Oceans – page 12/ Human Health Effects of Plastic Pollution in the Oceans; page 11/Text box 1; page 33/Text Box 9 & 10). Hahn discloses that plastic, including microplastics and nanoplastics, are pervasive in aquatic environments, such as oceans, rivers, and seas (see Hahn figure 1; pages 9-10/Plastic Pollution of the Oceans; page 35/Conclusions left and right columns; page 37/left column/Conclusion 7). Hahn discloses “Plastic pollution is one of the most pervasive and highly visible threats to the health of the oceans today. Once discharged into the natural environment, plastic can take up to 500 years to disappear. The Mediterranean Sea is particularly vulnerable to plastic pollution because of its semi-enclosed geographical location, and the intensity of its maritime transport, fishing, industry, and tourism. With more than 3000 billion microplastic particles estimated to be in its waters, the Mediterranean is the most polluted sea in the world” (see Hahn page 33/left column/Text Box 9). Hahn discloses that “[D]ue to their large surface-to-volume ratio, microplastic particles can also adsorb toxic chemical pollutants from the marine environment – polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs, DDT, and toxic metals” (see Hahn page 10/ Marine Pollution by Plastic Microparticles).
Hahn is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water pollution; ,monitoring oil/petroleum, plastic and microplastic pollution in aquatic environments; and analyzing the impact of pollution, including plastic, microplastic and oil/petroleum, on aquatic environment, marine animals, and humans.
Hahn discloses plastic, microplastics and nanoplastics are ubiquitous in aquatic environments globally. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method and system of CN 703 on the aquatic environment containing pollutants, such as heavy metals like mercury, lead and/or cadmium, plastic and microplastic pollutants, as disclosed in Hahn, because it would assist with the removal of a pollutant from the aquatic environment.
Hahn discloses plastic, microplastics and nanoplastics are ubiquitous in aquatic environments globally. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method and system of CN 703 on the aquatic environment containing pollutants, such as heavy metals like mercury, lead and/or cadmium, plastic and microplastic pollutants, as disclosed in Hahn, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. remove or entrap a pollutant from an aquatic environment. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
As established above, plastic, microplastics and nanoplastics are ubiquitous in aquatic environments globally, as disclosed by Hahn. Hence, the application of the method and system of CN 703 to an aquatic environment, as disclosed in Hahn, will necessarily result in reducing the quantity of impurities, including heavy metals and microplastics. The material(s) and step(s) of CN 703 in view of Hahn appears to be substantially identical to the claimed materials and steps and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
CN 703 in view of Hahn does not disclose subjecting the aggregates to heat treatment.
Horvath discloses wastewater that has undergone electrochemical/electrocoagulation in the presence of Fe ions can be thermally treated at temperatures 800 and 1100 °C in order to generate synthetized powder products of different phases of iron oxides, i.e. “maghemite, hematite at 800 °Cand hematite, magnetite, maghemite at 1100 °C. By removing the initial salt content, the relatively pure mix of iron oxides with pigment features was obtained. The further utilization of the obtained materials for wastewater treatment may lead to significant cost reduction. This observation has a potential to open new horizons for a more controlled wastewater recycling, and cleaner maghemite-hematite formation in form of microstructures within a transformed waste matrix” (see Horvath pages 6-7). Horvath establishes that “increasing temperature favours the oxidative magnetite/maghemite transformation toward hematite formation” (see Horvath page 2) and that “phase transition rather continued in the way of maghemite formation and magnetite reduction in treatment at 1100 °C and temperature decrease down to 800 °C resulted in complete transformation of magnetite into hematite and maghemite according to PXRD (figure 5)” (see Horvath page 6; see also Horvath page 1 and 5).
Horvath is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. electrochemical treatment of water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of CN 703 in view of Hahn by incorporating a heating step, as disclosed in Horvath, because it would assist in generating a product, i.e. iron oxides, i.e. “maghemite, hematite at 800 °Cand hematite, magnetite, maghemite at 1100 °C, and/or because it would assist with reducing cost and/or waste (see Horvath pages 6-7).
Hence, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath is deemed to disclose a method for treating wastewater, the method comprising providing wastewater containing microplastics; forming aggregates in the wastewater using iron ions; separating supernatant and the aggregates from the wastewater; subjecting the aggregates to aging; and subjecting the aggregates to heat treatment.
Regarding claim 2, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses placing electrodes containing iron in the wastewater (see rejection of claim 1); and supplying electricity to the electrodes (see CN 703 paragraphs 0012, 0013, 0020, 0037).
Regarding claim 3, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath does not disclose a pH of the wastewater after forming aggregates in the wastewater using iron ions is greater than 8.5.
However, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses that the electrochemically treated water has Ca(OH)₂ added in order to adjust the pH to 9-10 (see CN 703 paragraph 0013, 0037).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the pH of the water of CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath within the ferrite precipitation reactor and after the membrane filter would remain high, i.e. a pH of 9-10, because there is no acid added or action taken that would reduce the pH of the treated water. Thus, the plain reading of CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath would be that the pH of the wastewater after forming aggregates in the wastewater using iron ions is greater than 8.5.
Regarding claim 4, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath does not disclose subjecting the separated supernatant to further purification.
However, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses that after the solid-liquid separation via the membrane filter, the “treated groundwater that meets the standards is then discharged into the ground through a circulation well” (see CN 703 paragraph 0037). CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath does not disclose what the standards are or what actions are taken if the standard is not taken.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to subject the treated groundwater of CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath to further purification if a standard is not met.
Regarding claim 5, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses subjecting the aggregates to heat treatment is performed at a temperature of 400 to 1000°C (see rejection of claim 1; see Horvath pages 1-2 and figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses recovering iron oxide from the aggregates subjected to heat treatment (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses the recovered iron oxide comprises Fe3O4, γ-Fe2O3, α-Fe2O3, or a combination thereof (see rejection of claim 1; see CN 703 paragraphs 0009, 0029, 0033, 0036-0037; see Horvath pages 1-2, 5).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20120160706 A1 (hereinafter US 0706).
Regarding claim 4, CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath discloses that after the solid-liquid separation via the membrane filter, the “treated groundwater that meets the standards is then discharged into the ground through a circulation well” (see CN 703 paragraph 0037). CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath does not disclose what the standards are or what actions are taken if the standard is not taken.
CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath does not disclose subjecting the separated supernatant to further purification.
US 0706 discloses a method and system for the treatment of wastewater (see US 0706 abstract, figures 1, 4A, 4B, claims 1, 26). US 0706 discloses “Wastewater Electrochemical Treatment Technology (WETT) based on electrochemical process units requiring only electricity to operate and periodic low-cost electrode replacement can efficiently treat individually or simultaneously heterogeneous wastewater streams. Important characteristics of this system are that it is omnivorous and does not require the addition of external chemicals, treatment agents or biological treatment. Another important feature of WETT is that it is fast compared to biological treatment and many other treatment approaches” (see US 0706 paragraph 0011; see also US 0706 paragraphs 0012-0014). US 0706 discloses the system comprises an electro-coagulation unit, an electro-oxidation unit and an oxidant removal unit, wherein wastewater is first treated by the electro-coagulation unit, then the electro-oxidation unit and thereafter the oxidant removal unit, to thereby generate treated wastewater (see US 0706 paragraph 0014). US 0706 discloses the system may also comprise a reverse osmosis unit or an evaporation-condensation unit after the oxidant removal unit, to thereby generate potable water (see US 0706 paragraph 0015).
US 0706 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. electrochemical treatment of water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath by incorporating an electro-oxidation unit and an oxidant removal unit as well as a reverse osmosis unit or an evaporation-condensation unit, as disclosed in US 0706, because it would assist with treating/purifying the water discharged from the electrocoagulation device of CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath, and/or because it would assist with generating potable water, and/or because it would assist with efficiently treating individually or simultaneously heterogeneous wastewater streams.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CN 703 in view of Hahn and Horvath by incorporating an electro-oxidation unit and an oxidant removal unit as well as a reverse osmosis unit or an evaporation-condensation unit, as disclosed in US 0706, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. purify or treat wastewater.
Related Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure:
US 20220226834 A1 (hereinafter US 834) discloses a “process for separating microplastics from aqueous matrices based on the interaction of said microplastics with magnetic minerals containing iron” (see US 834 abstract). US 834 discloses the process achieves a high rate of separation, uses low-cost and environmentally-friendly materials and works on all types of microplastics (see US 834 paragraph 0010). US 834 discloses examples of the magnetic iron mineral including “magnetite (formed by ferrous-diferric oxide FeO.Fe2O3, sometimes formulated as Fe3O4), maghemite (γ-Fe2O3), ilmenite (FeTiO3), and the pyrrhotite (Fe0.8-1S)” (see US 834 paragraph 0061).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights