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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 12-19 are currently pending
Claims 1-11 and 20 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claim 14 is currently amended
Claims 12-19 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 02/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II claims 12-19 in the reply filed on 07/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restricted inventions are not independent inventions and that examination of both claimed invention together would not present a serious burden on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This is not found persuasive because the issue as to the meaning and intent regarding “independent and distinct” as used in 35 U.S.C 121 and 37 CFR 1.41 has been adequately addressed in MPEP §802.01. Therein, it is stated that the legislative intent was to maintain the substantive law on the subject of restriction practice prior to enactment of 35 USC 121. Such practice permitted restriction between distinct, albeit dependent inventions. If the intent had been otherwise, then only the term “independent” would have been used. Thus, restriction between the distinct inventions set forth in this application is proper even though these inventions are clearly related.
With regard to applicants allegation that joinder of these distinct inventions would not present a serious burden to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, such allegations relied on the unsupported assumption that the search and the examination of both the invention would be coextensive. However, the issues raised in the examination of apparatus claims are divergent from those raised in the examination of process claims. Further, while there may be some overlap in the searches of the two inventions, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be identical. Therefore, based on the additional work involved in searching and examining both distinct inventions together, restriction of the distinct inventions is clearly proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “and citric acid are provided in the composition” and instead should state “and said citric acid are provided in the black water treatment composition” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “the composition” and instead should state “the black water treatment composition” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “the composition” and instead should state “the black water treatment composition” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “the composition” and instead should state “the black water treatment composition” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the treatment composition.” and instead should state “the black water treatment composition.” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the treatment composition” and instead should state “the black water treatment composition” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. 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.
Claim 18 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the pre-dosed encapsulated volume” on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahn (U.S. 7,291,276 B1) (hereinafter “Zahn”).
Regarding Claim 12:
Zahn teaches a pre-dosed treatment for scavenging hydrogen sulfide from black water contained within a black water holding tank in a vehicle (Examiner’s note: the limitation ‘for scavenging hydrogen sulfide’ is merely a product-by-process limitation of a pre-dosed treatment. Furthermore, the limitation ‘for scavenging hydrogen sulfide’ is merely a material worked upon) (see FIG. 1) (see col. 1 lines 17-25) (see col. 2 lines 51-67), the pre-dosed treatment comprising:
a black water treatment composition (two precursor compounds mixed together to form a solution) (see col. 2 lines 51-67) (see col. 4 lines 9-23) (see col. 4 lines 35-61), said black water treatment composition comprising:
a ferric ion-releasing compound in an amount (Examiner’s note: It is inherent for a compound/acid to be added in an amount) (two precursor compounds mixed together to form a solution) (see col. 2 lines 51-67) (see col. 4 lines 9-23) (see col. 4 lines 35-61) (see col. 5 lines 11-25 further discussing a ferroin indicator); and
citric acid in an amount (Examiner’s note: It is inherent for a compound/acid to be added in an amount) (two precursor compounds mixed together to form a solution) (see col. 2 lines 51-67) (see col. 4 lines 9-23) (see col. 4 lines 35-42) (see col. 4 lines 45-61).
Although Zahn teaches two precursor compounds forming the black water treatment composition including (see Examples 1-3 further illustrating multiple experiments and test kits) (see col. 2 lines 51-67) (see col. 4 lines 9-23) (see col. 4 lines 35-42) (see col. 4 lines 45-61) (see col. 5 lines 11-25 further discussing a ferroin indicator), Zahn does not explicitly teach a ferric ion-releasing compound in an amount ranging from about 60 wt % to about 66 wt %, and citric acid in an amount ranging from about 34 wt % to about 40 wt %, as recited in independent claim 12. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the black water treatment composition to further include a ferric ion-releasing compound in an amount ranging from about 60 wt % to about 66 wt % and a citric acid in an amount ranging from about 34 wt % to about 40 wt % for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently destroy microorganisms, bacteria and hydrogen sulfide from black water stored in a black water holding tank (see Examples 1-3 further illustrating multiple experiments and test kits) (see col. 2 lines 51-67) (see col. 4 lines 9-23) (see col. 4 lines 35-42) (see col. 4 lines 45-61) (see col. 5 lines 11-25 further discussing a ferroin indicator).
Regarding Claim 13:
Zahn teaches the pre-dosed treatment of claim 12, wherein said ferric ion-releasing compound and said citric acid are provided in the black water treatment composition in a wt % ratio of 2:1 (see col. 5 lines 11-25 further discussing ratios and concentrations added). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the black water treatment composition to further include a ferric ion-releasing compound and a citric acid in a wt % ratio of 2:1 for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently destroy microorganisms, bacteria and hydrogen sulfide from black water stored in a black water holding tank (see Examples 1-3 further illustrating multiple experiments and test kits) (see col. 2 lines 51-67) (see col. 4 lines 9-23) (see col. 4 lines 35-42) (see col. 4 lines 45-61) (see col. 5 lines 11-25 further discussing a ferroin indicator).
Regarding Claim 14:
Zahn teaches the pre-dosed treatment of claim 12, wherein the black water treatment composition is in liquid form (see col. 2 lines 61-64) (see col. 4 lines 36-65 further discussing liquid, solid, bags, pucks or gel forms).
Regarding Claim 15:
Zahn teaches the pre-dosed treatment of claim 12, wherein the black water treatment composition is in pellet form (see col. 2 lines 61-64) (see col. 4 lines 36-65 further discussing liquid, solid, bags, pucks or gel forms).
Regarding Claim 16:
Zahn teaches the pre-dosed treatment of claim 12, wherein the black water treatment composition is a time-released composition (see col. 3 lines 15-31 further discussing releasing the black water treatment composition over time) (see col. 4 lines 43-61).
Regarding Claim 17:
Zahn teaches the pre-dosed treatment of claim 12, wherein the pre-dosed treatment further comprises a pre-dosed encapsulated volume of the black water treatment composition (see Examples 1-3 further illustrating multiple experiments and test kits) (see col. 2 lines 51-67) (see col. 4 lines 9-23) (see col. 4 lines 35-42) (see col. 4 lines 45-61) (see col. 5 lines 11-25 further discussing a ferroin indicator).
Regarding Claim 18:
Zahn teaches the pre-dosed treatment of claim 12, wherein the pre-dosed encapsulated volume of the black water treatment composition is released from a water soluble encapsulation (see Examples 1-3 further illustrating multiple experiments and test kits) (see col. 2 lines 51-67) (see col. 4 lines 9-23) (see col. 4 lines 35-42) (see col. 4 lines 45-61) (see col. 5 lines 11-25 further discussing a ferroin indicator).
Regarding Claim 19:
Zahn teaches the pre-dosed treatment of claim 12, wherein the pre-dosed treatment is a solid (see col. 2 lines 61-64) (see col. 4 lines 36-65 further discussing liquid, solid, bags, pucks or gel forms).
Other Reference Considered
Marano (U.S. 2018/0079664 A1) (hereinafter “Marano”) teaches a wastewater odor control system and method including controlling hydrogen sulfide in a storage tank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights