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(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2024 has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the term “impregnate”, it will be interpreted as: to cause to be filled, imbued, permeated, or saturated {Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Impregnate. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary.}
Regarding claim 13, “irregular” will be interpreted as: presence of aluminum nanoparticles dispersed on the surface {In light of the applicant’s specification, page 13}
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 1-18 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 claims 1 and 5¸ they recite the limitation "Al" (short for aluminum) There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “aluminum salt” has basis, but not aluminum by itself.
Regarding claim 10, the recited “Al-displaced impregnated activated carbon” has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the applicant intended this is refer to a separate limitation, the previously defined “displaced impregnated activated carbon” from claim 1, or the “impregnated activated carbon” from claim 1. Given the applicant’s specification does not have support for the composition of “al-displaced impregnated activated carbon” nor “displaced impregnated activated carbon”, the term will be interpreted as if they intended to write “impregnated activated carbon”. (Similar to the limitation that was claimed in dependent claim 5)
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addiego (US20160023921), in view of Abussaud (Ammonia Removal from Wastewater Using Both Activated Carbon and Carbon Nanotube), in further view of Renard (UV Resonant Al Nanocrystals Synthesis, Silica Coating, and Broadband Photothermal Response).
Regarding claim 1, Addiego discloses a method for removing ammonia from wastewater, comprising: impregnating an activated carbon with an aluminum salt to obtain an impregnated activated carbon; {Claims 1-2}
wherein the displaced impregnated activated carbon comprises 8 to 12 wt. % Al, wherein wt. % is based on the total weight of the Al and the activated carbon, {[0029] regarding salt loading range} and the nanocrystals are at least partially embedded on a surface of the impregnated activated carbon. {[0045] regarding embedded and enveloped particles}
Regarding claim 1, Addiego fails to disclose mixing the impregnated activated carbon with the wastewater while agitating at a temperature of 65 to 75 °C to contact the impregnated activated carbon with the wastewater, wherein during the mixing a first portion of the ammonia present in the wastewater is adsorbed on the impregnated activated carbon and a second portion of the ammonia present in the wastewater displaces a portion of the aluminum salt in the impregnated activated carbon to obtain a displaced impregnated activated carbon, wherein the Al present in the impregnated activated carbon is in the form of nanocrystals;
and wherein the wastewater has a pH between 9 and 11.
Regarding claim 1, Abussaud teaches mixing the impregnated activated carbon with the wastewater while agitating {Abstract, regarding wastewater and shaking speed} at a temperature of 65 to 75 °C to contact the impregnated activated carbon with the wastewater, {Top page 14} wherein during the mixing a first portion of the ammonia present in the wastewater is adsorbed on the impregnated activated carbon and a second portion of the ammonia present in the wastewater displaces a portion of the aluminum salt in the impregnated activated carbon to obtain a displaced impregnated activated carbon, {MPEP 2112 states, "When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process." Since the device (activated carbon impregnated with aluminum salt) from Addiego, and the method steps of Abussaud are the same as the claimed invention, the results of the method would be an inherent characteristic of the method-claimed limitations here.}
and wherein the wastewater has a pH between 9 and 11. {Bottom page 8}
Regarding claim 1, and the following dependent claims 2 and 4-5, 9, 11-12, and 14-18; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the aluminum-active carbon composite material of Addiego with the method steps of Abussaud because, Addiego already discloses their material is meant for the treatment of wastewater streams {Addiego, Abstract}, which the method of Abussaud teaches. {Abussaud, Abstract} One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine the material of Addiego to the methodology of Abussaud because the Abussaud teaches “removal efficiency” effects of differing the experimental parameters. A person having ordinary skill in the art would use the teachings of the Abussaud, given they teach the best parameters for the highest removal efficiency, and expect similar results when combining this method to the material of Addiego.
Regarding claim 1, Renard teaches the Al present in the impregnated activated carbon is in the form of nanocrystals. {Abstract}
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nanoparticles of Addiego with the nanocrystals of Renard because both inventions discuss how their respective nanoparticles and nanocrystals can be used in water treatment methods. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to modify the nanoparticles to the nanocrystals because the nanocrystals of Renard offer increased stability in water, from what is normally hours, to now weeks, which is beneficial when these aluminum components, are used in wastewater treatment methods, being in contact with water for extended periods of time. {Renard, Abstract}
Regarding claim 2, Addiego fails to disclose 0.05 to 2.0 g of the impregnated activated carbon is mixed with 100 mL of the wastewater.
Regarding claim 2, Abussaud teaches 0.05 to 2.0 g of the impregnated activated carbon is mixed with 100 mL of the wastewater. {Bottom page 10} It would be obvious to implement this claimed ratio as this ratio appears to give the best ammonia removal efficiency, in relation to an economic standpoint. {Bottom page 11}
Regarding claim 3, Addiego discloses the nanocrystals have a diameter of 50 to 600 nanometers (nm). {[0044]}
Regarding claim 4, Addiego fails to disclose the impregnated activated carbon and the wastewater are mixed with an agitation speed of 100 to 250 RPM.
Regarding claim 4, Abussaud teaches the impregnated activated carbon and the wastewater are mixed with an agitation speed of 100 to 250 RPM. {Bottom page 9} It would be obvious to implement this claimed agitation speed, as increasing the agitation in this range, further increased the removal of ammonia as the resistance for ammonia to be in contact with the adsorbent surface will be reduced. {Top page 10}
Regarding claim 5, Addiego discloses the impregnated activated carbon comprises 10 wt. % Al. {[0042]}
Regarding claim 5, Addiego fails to disclose the mixing achieves an ammonia removal of 40 wt. % from the wastewater based on the total weight of the wastewater, wherein the pH of the wastewater during the mixing is 10.5, and wherein the mixing is conducted for 2 hours.
Regarding claim 5, Abussaud teaches the mixing achieves an ammonia removal of 40 wt. % from the wastewater based on the total weight of the wastewater, {Bottom page 11, regarding the best removal %} wherein the pH of the wastewater during the mixing is 10.5, {Bottom page 8} and wherein the mixing is conducted for 2 hours. {Top page 13} It would be obvious to implement these claimed features as Abussaud teaches the claimed limitations provide the best % of ammonia removal efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Addiego suggests 5 % to 40 % by volume of the nanocrystals are embedded on the surface of the impregnated activated carbon. {[0045]; Note that Addiego does not explicitly disclose the claimed range, however, nowhere in the applicant’s disclosure, have they demonstrated the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 2144 states, “If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on the rationale used by the court to support an obviousness rejection.” Given that Addiego discloses that “at least a portion of the nanoparticles are exposed”, one of reasonable skill in the art would be able to determine the appropriate range of nanocrystals embedded on the surface of the activated carbon.}
Regarding claim 7, Addiego discloses aluminum salt is aluminum nitrate. {[0023] regarding suitable salts including nitrates}
Regarding claim 8, Addiego discloses the activated carbon has an average particle diameter of 600 to 1000 nm. {[0038] regarding the 0.5 to 5 micron (500 to 5,000 nm) range}
Regarding claim 9, Addiego fails to disclose the mixing is at an agitation speed of 200 RPM.
Regarding claim 9, Abussaud teaches the mixing is at an agitation speed of 200 RPM. {Bottom page 9} It would be obvious to implement the agitation speed of 200 RPM, as increasing the agitation from 100 to 200 RPM, further increased the removal of ammonia as the resistance for ammonia to be in contact with the adsorbent surface will be reduced. {Top page 10}
Regarding claim 10, Addiego discloses the Al-displaced impregnated activated carbon comprises 10 wt. % of Al. {[0042]}
Regarding claim 11, Addiego fails to disclose the wastewater has a pH of 10 to 11.
Regarding claim 11, Abussaud teaches the wastewater has a pH of 10 to 11. {Bottom page 8} It would be obvious to implement the claimed pH range, as the ammonia removal efficiency % had stayed the same, {Bottom page 8} teaching that the claimed range lacks criticality for the invention.
Regarding claim 12, Addiego fails to disclose the wastewater has a pH of 10.5.
Regarding claim 12, Abussaud teaches the wastewater has a pH of 10.5. {Bottom page 8} It would be obvious to implement the claimed pH, as the study of Abussaud shows the ammonia removal efficiency % stays the same with slight variations in the pH {Bottom page 8} teaching that the claimed pH lacks criticality for the invention.
Regarding claim 13, Addiego discloses the impregnated activated carbon has a top surface and a bottom surface, {[0022] regarding the shape of the carbon support; Note that any physical object can be interpreted to have a top and bottom surface} wherein the top and bottom surface are irregular in shape, {[0045] regarding the nanoparticles embedded and/or enveloped in the surface} and wherein the impregnated activated carbon has a surface area of 500 to 1500 m2/g. {[0040] regarding total surface area from 200-10,000m2/g}
Regarding claim 14, Addiego fails to disclose the wastewater has a temperature of 70 °C during the mixing.
Regarding claim 14, Abussaud teaches the wastewater has a temperature of 70 °C during the mixing. {Top page 14} It would be obvious to utilize this temperature parameter as the study shows increasing the temperature increases the percent removal. {Bottom page 14}
Regarding claim 15, Addiego fails to disclose 1.5 to 2 g of the impregnated activated carbon is mixed with 100 mL of the wastewater.
Regarding claim 15, Abussaud teaches 1.5 to 2 g of the impregnated activated carbon is mixed with 100 mL of the wastewater. {Bottom page 10} It would be obvious to implement this claimed ratio as this ratio appears to give the best ammonia removal efficiency, in relation to an economic standpoint. {Bottom page 11}
Regarding claim 16, Addiego fails to disclose 2 g of the impregnated activated carbon is mixed with 100 mL of the wastewater.
Regarding claim 16, Abussaud teaches 2 g of the impregnated activated carbon is mixed with 100 mL of the wastewater. {Bottom page 10} It would be obvious to implement this claimed ratio as this ratio appears to give the best ammonia removal efficiency, in relation to an economic standpoint. {Bottom page 11}
Regarding claim 17, Addiego fails to disclose the mixing is conducted for 2 to 4 hours.
Regarding claim 17, Abussaud teaches the mixing is conducted for 2 to 4 hours. {Top page 13} It would be obvious to implement the claimed mixing time, as Abussaud teaches this mixing range increases until 240 minutes (4 hours), where equilibrium occurs.
Regarding claim 18, Addiego fails to disclose the mixing is conducted for 2 hours.
Regarding claim 18, Abussaud teaches the mixing is conducted for 2 hours. {Top page 13} It would be obvious to implement the claimed mixing time, as Abussaud teaches the removal efficiency increases rapidly until 120 minutes (2 hours).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights