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 .
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 1-11, 17-18 and 20 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deul et al. (US 3,617,560).
Per claim 1, Deul et al. disclose a method for treating acidic water in an industrial processing system (Abstract, Dilute acid wastes, such as mine drainage waters, are neutralized by reaction with an extremely finely divided limestone slurry after which the neutralized effluent is aerated to strip carbon dioxide and oxidize ferrous iron.) that has a pH of less than 5 (Table 1, pH 2.9), the method comprising:
treating the acidic water with a chemical treatment comprising micronized
calcium carbonate in order to react an acid in the acidic water and the micronized calcium carbonate (col. 1, lines 74-75 – col. 2, lines 1-4, Subsequent laboratory work ascertained the fact that the bulk of neutralization capacity of the previous process depended upon the generation of extremely fine limestone particles on the order of 1 to 10 microns in size. Particles of this size are capable of extremely rapid and complete reaction with acid wastes.); and
aerating the treated water to facilitate the chemical reaction so to raise the pH
of the aerated water to a target pH of 5.5 or more (col. 3, lines 15-21, The treated effluent stream entering aeration means 8 typically will have a pH in the range of 5 to 6. This low pH is due almost entirely to dissolved carbon dioxide. Sparging with as little as one-third cubic feet of air per gallon of effluent is sufficient to strip much of the dissolved carbon dioxide, thus raising the pH to the range of 6.5 to 7.). Deul et al. also disclose that a percentage of the bulk of the calcium carbonate may be in the range of one to five microns (col. 3, lines 66-69, In this latter test, 98.6 percent of the product passed through a 400-mesh screen and median particle size was about 8 microns with a high percentage of particles in the 1 to 5 micron range.) with 10 microns being the maximum (col. 3, lines 54-59, Previous laboratory experimentation had shown that extremely finely divided limestone would react rapidly and substantially completely upon agitation with acid mine water. The median particle size of limestone necessary to achieve such reaction was found to be on the order of 10 microns maximum.). Deul et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the micronized calcium carbonate has a maximum particle size in a range of 0.01 microns to 5 microns.
Given that the range of Deul et al. covers particles within the instant range and the particles are present in high percentages below 5 microns as noted above, it is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to select calcium carbonate particles within a particle size range of 0.01 to 5 microns in order to, for example, rapidly and completely react the calcium carbonate with acidic waters, which is a goal of Deul et al., depending on the results desired. It has been held that matters involving routine design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Further, it is noted that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) that applicant is able to obtain any new and unexpected result by using a maximum calcium carbonate size in a range of 0.01 to 5 microns.
Per claim 2, wherein the target pH of the aerated water is in a range of 6.0 to 7.5 (col. 3, lines 15-21, The treated effluent stream entering aeration means 8 typically will have a pH in the range of 5 to 6. This low pH is due almost entirely to dissolved carbon dioxide. Sparging with as little as one-third cubic feet of air per gallon of effluent is sufficient to strip much of the dissolved carbon dioxide, thus raising the pH to the range of 6.5 to 7.).
Per claim 3, wherein the target pH of the aerated water is in a range of 6.0 to 7.0 (col. 3, lines 15-21, The treated effluent stream entering aeration means 8 typically will have a pH in the range of 5 to 6. This low pH is due almost entirely to dissolved carbon dioxide. Sparging with as little as one-third cubic feet of air per gallon of effluent is sufficient to strip much of the dissolved carbon dioxide, thus raising the pH to the range of 6.5 to 7.).
Per claim 4, wherein the target pH of the aerated water is in a range of 6.5 to 7.0 (col. 3, lines 15-21, The treated effluent stream entering aeration means 8 typically will have a pH in the range of 5 to 6. This low pH is due almost entirely to dissolved carbon dioxide. Sparging with as little as one-third cubic feet of air per gallon of effluent is sufficient to strip much of the dissolved carbon dioxide, thus raising the pH to the range of 6.5 to 7.).
Per claim 5, Deul et al. disclose that the particle size of the calcium carbonate may be small as 1 micron (col. 1, lines 74-75 – col. 2, lines 1-4, Subsequent laboratory work ascertained the fact that the bulk of neutralization capacity of the previous process depended upon the generation of extremely fine limestone particles on the order of 1 to 10 microns in size. Particles of this size are capable of extremely rapid and complete reaction with acid wastes.). Deul et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum particle size of the micronized calcium carbonate is in a range of 0.01 microns to 1.5 microns.
Given that the range of Deul et al. covers particles within the instant range such as particles below one 1.5 microns, it is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to select calcium carbonate particles within a particle size range of 0.01 to 1.5 microns in order to, for example, rapidly and completely react the calcium carbonate with acidic waters, which is a goal of Deul et al., depending on the results desired. It has been held that matters involving routine design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Further, it is noted that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) that applicant is able to obtain any new and unexpected result by using a maximum calcium carbonate size in a range of 0.01 to 1.5 microns.
Per claim 6, wherein a pH of the acidic water is in a range of 1 to 4 (Table 1, pH 2.9).
Per claim 7, wherein a pH of the treated water is in a range of more than 4 to 5 (col. 3, lines 15-21, The treated effluent stream entering aeration means 8 typically will have a pH in the range of 5 to 6. This low pH is due almost entirely to dissolved carbon dioxide. Sparging with as little as one-third cubic feet of air per gallon of effluent is sufficient to strip much of the dissolved carbon dioxide, thus raising the pH to the range of 6.5 to 7.).
Per claim 8, wherein the chemical treatment is introduced as a slurry (Abstract, Dilute acid wastes, such as mine drainage waters, are neutralized by reaction with an extremely finely divided limestone slurry after which the neutralized effluent is aerated to strip carbon dioxide and oxidize ferrous iron.).
Per claim 9, Deul et al. do not disclose wherein the chemical treatment is introduced as a powder.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to introduce the chemical treatment as powder in order to, for example, rapidly and completely react the calcium carbonate with acidic waters, depending on the results desired. It has been held that matters involving routine design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Further, it is noted that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) that applicant is able to any new and unexpected result by introducing the chemical treatment as a powder.
Per claim 10, Deul et al. do not disclose wherein an amount of the micronized calcium carbonate in the chemical treatment is in a range of 50% to 99%.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to modify the method of Deul et al. such that it comprises a step of wherein an amount of the micronized calcium carbonate in the chemical treatment is in a range of 50% to 99% depending on anticipated contaminant loading and the results desired. Further, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result derived from utilizing the recited range amount. Moreover, it has been held that matters of routine optimization do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.
Per claim 11, Deul et al. do not disclose wherein an amount of the micronized calcium carbonate in the chemical treatment is in a range of 75% to 85%.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of process optimization and/or design choice to modify the method of Deul et al. such that it comprises a step of wherein an amount of the micronized calcium carbonate in the chemical treatment is in a range of 75% to 85% depending on anticipated contaminant loading and the results desired. Further, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result derived from utilizing the recited range amount. Moreover, it has been held that matters of routine optimization do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.
Per claim 17, further comprising:
measuring a pH of at least one of the acidic water (Table 1, pH 2.9) and the treated water (col. 3, lines 15-17, The treated effluent stream entering aeration means 8 typically will have a pH in the range of 5 to 6.), and
controlling the chemical reaction so that a pH of the aerated water reaches the
target pH (col. 3, lines 19-22, Sparging with as little as one-third cubic feet of air per gallon of effluent is sufficient to strip much of the dissolved carbon dioxide, thus raising the pH to the range of 6.5 to 7).
Per claim 18, Deul et al. do not disclose wherein the controlling step further
includes adjusting a dosing of the chemical treatment based on the measured pH to control the chemical reaction so that the pH of the aerated water reaches the target pH.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of process optimization to modify the method of Deul et al. such that it comprises wherein the controlling step further includes adjusting a dosing of the chemical treatment based on the measured pH to control the chemical reaction so that the pH of the aerated water reaches the target pH in order to, for example, directly raise the pH of at least the acidic water prior to aeration and avoid adding too much or too little calcium carbonate to the acidic water. Clearly, from the disclosure of Deul et al., the skilled artisan would have known that calcium carbonate effects the process by raising the pH of the acidic water. Further, the skilled artisan would be motivated to ensure that enough calcium carbonate is added to raise the pH to a sufficient level to prior to aeration such that the water suitable for disposal after aeration.
Per claim 20, wherein the industrial processing system is a cast iron production system, a steel-making system, a metal mining system, a sugar mill system, a waste treatment system, a nut processing system, an oil and drilling system, a coal fire power system, or a desulfurization system (col. 1, lines 18-24, Substantial quantities of acid waste streams are generated industrially. Typical acid waste waters include rinse waters from iron pickling and dilute acid wastes from a variety of chemical processes. Mining activity results in the formation of acid mine drainage waters due to the reaction of ground water with various sulfide minerals, especially pyrite, to produce sulfuric acid solutions containing dissolved iron.; Example 1… An existing 3million gallon holding lagoon was used to level out the variable composition of water pumped from the mine and to obtain some reduction in ferrous iron by natural oxidation. This provided a mine water of fairly uniform composition for tests.).
Claims 12-16 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deul et al. (US 3,617,560) in view of Ede et al. (US 7,390,416).
Per claim 12, Deul et al. do not disclose wherein the chemical treatment further
comprises at least one of a dispersant and a biocide.
Ede et al., also directed to a method for treating water in an industrial processing system (Abstract, An improved method to remove metals, including molybdenum, from industrial wastewater,), disclose wherein a chemical treatment further comprises at least one of a dispersant and a biocide (col. 3, lines 14-22, Following the adjustment of the pH, a suitable metal sulfide complex, such as an iron sulfide complex with sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate as a component, is added to the wastewater at a concentration of about 1% to 2% by weight. The addition of the metal sulfide complex is made so as to limit any excess of the metal sulfide complex remaining in solution since such excess may contribute to the liberation of hydrogen sulfide gas in an acidification step described below.) in order to, for example, facilitate the removal of metals from the water.
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the method of Deul et al. such that it comprises wherein the chemical treatment further comprises at least one of a dispersant and a biocide in order to, for example, facilitate the removal of metals from the water.
Per claim 13, further comprising treating the aerated water with a metal scavenger.
Ede et al. disclose the method further comprising treating the water with a metal scavenger (col. 3, lines 14-22, Following the adjustment of the pH, a suitable metal sulfide complex, such as an iron sulfide complex with sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate as a component, is added to the wastewater at a concentration of about 1% to 2% by weight. The addition of the metal sulfide complex is made so as to limit any excess of the metal sulfide complex remaining in solution since such excess may contribute to the liberation of hydrogen sulfide gas in an acidification step described below.) in order to, for example, facilitate the removal of metals from the water.
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the method of Deul et al. such that it comprises treating the aerated water with a metal scavenger in order to, for example, facilitate the removal of metals from the water.
Per claim 14, Deul et al., as modified by Ede et al., disclose wherein the metal scavenger includes an organic sulfide complex (see Ede et al., col. 3, lines 14-22, Following the adjustment of the pH, a suitable metal sulfide complex, such as an iron sulfide complex with sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate as a component, is added to the wastewater at a concentration of about 1% to 2% by weight. The addition of the metal sulfide complex is made so as to limit any excess of the metal sulfide complex remaining in solution since such excess may contribute to the liberation of hydrogen sulfide gas in an acidification step described below.).
Per claim 15, Deul et al. do not disclose the method further comprising treating the aerated water with a flocculent.
Ede et al. disclose the method further comprising treating the aerated water with a flocculent (col. 3, lines 43-49, Following the addition of acid, the wastewater is transferred to a Flocculation Tank 140 where a flocculating agent is added to the wastewater in a sufficient amount to precipitate the metals. A representative flocculent includes a high molecular weight anionic polymeric flocculent such as Nalco.RTM. 7768 at an approximate concentration of about 0.1% to 0.6% by weight of the wastewater.) in order to, for example, facilitate the removal of metals from the water.
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the method of Ede et al. such that it comprises treating the aerated water with a flocculent in order to, for example, facilitate the removal of metals from the water.
Per claim 16, Deul et al., as modified by Ede et al., disclose wherein the flocculent includes a polymeric flocculent (see Ede et al. col. 3, lines 43-49, Following the addition of acid, the wastewater is transferred to a Flocculation Tank 140 where a flocculating agent is added to the wastewater in a sufficient amount to precipitate the metals. A representative flocculent includes a high molecular weight anionic polymeric flocculent such as Nalco.RTM. 7768 at an approximate concentration of about 0.1% to 0.6% by weight of the wastewater.).
Claim 19 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deul et al. (US 3,617,560) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2015/0034553).
Per claim 19, Deul et al. do not disclose wherein the industrial processing system is online.
Kumar et al., also directed to a method of water treatment in an industrial processing system ([0003] This application relates to wastewater treatment plants, more particularly to the monitoring and control of the key units of a wastewater treatment plant.), disclose wherein the industrial processing system is online ([0252] The developed dynamic models of the AD 20 and MBR 30 are used as the basis for a method of operating AD 20 and MBR 30 through online monitoring and control of one or both of AD 20 and MBR 30 of wastewater treatment plant 10.) in order to, for example, improve operation of a treatment system through monitoring and control of elements in the system ([0008] Thus, a need exists for an improved method of operating a wastewater treatment plant through monitoring and controlling the AD and MBR of a wastewater treatment plant).
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the method of Deul et al. such that it comprises wherein the industrial processing system is online in order to, for example, improve operation of the treatment system through monitoring and control of elements in the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims in view of Oishi have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Oishi for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner agrees with Applicant’s broad assertion that Ede et al. and Kumar et al. are not relied upon to cure the deficiencies of Oishi. However, the references fairly render obvious the subject matter of claims 12-16 and 19, respectively, when combined with the teachings of Deul et al.
For the reasons provided above, a holding of obviousness is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 110510773 discloses online monitoring of pH in an acidic water processing system.
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 FRED PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 0900-1730.
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.
/FRED PRINCE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
