DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed with the US on 05/23/2024 and having an Effective Filing Date of 05/23/2024, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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 23 MAY 2024 and 09 OCTOBER 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 1 recites the limitations “clay” and “surface treating agent” in lines 6-7, these conflict with the same terms earlier in the claim. The should be corrected to “the clay” and “the surface treating agent”.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “clay” and “surface treating agent” in lines 7-8, these conflict with the same terms earlier in the claim. The should be corrected to “the clay” and “the surface treating agent”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the components” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be corrected to “
Claim 17 recites the limitations “clay” and “surface treating agent” in line 10, these conflict with the same terms earlier in the claim. The should be corrected to “the clay” and “the surface treating agent”.
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 lists ”iron oxide” twice.
Claims 13 and 17 recite “wherein” twice at the beginning of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongbin Yin, Ming Kong, Xiaohong Gu, Huiui Chen, Removal of arsenic from water by porous charred granulated attapulgite-supported hydrated iron oxide in bath and column modes, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 166, 2017, Pages 88-97 (hereinafter “Yin”) in view of US 2003/0015473 A1 (hereinafter “Murphy”).
Regarding Claim 1 Yin discloses a product for adsorbing a heavy metal (arsenic) in a liquid, the product comprising clay (granulated attapulgite, GAP) that has been surface functionalized with a surface treating agent, the surface treating agent including (a) iron chloride which converts to iron oxide (i.e. which is inherently both an arsenic affinity functional group and a selenium affinity functional group), wherein the components of the product includes:
just the clay/GAP and the surface treating agent (i.e. together they are 100 wt% of the particle), but is silent to their specific weight percentages in the final product,
wherein the product is in the form of granules having a particle size in the range 1-2 mm (and thus 100% of the granules are expected to a particle size in the rage of 1000-2000 microns);
wherein the clay includes attapulgite, wherein, the arsenic/selenium affinity functional groups are deposited on the clay surface, wherein the heavy metal includes arsenic; See Title, Secs. 1., 2.2., 2.3.
Note: Yin only discloses removal of arsenic, and is silent to selenium; thus it is seen to be disclosed that the functional groups have an affinity for arsenic (Abstract, Introduction, 2.3., 3.1.), however, the iron chloride/oxide is also expected, absent evidence to the contrary, to inherently be/comprise a selenium affinity functional group, as evidenced by Applicant’s Examples 1 and 2 which disclosed similar iron chloride treated granulated attapulgite which adsorb selenium; instant specification [0061], [0062], Fig. 9. See MPEP 2112.01.
Yin does not disclose (1) the product includes specifically 70 - 99 wt. % clay and 1 - 30 wt. % the surface treating agent, or (2) wherein 60 - 95 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through a 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on a 60 mesh sieve, or sized in the range of less than 2000 microns to 250 microns.
However, with regard to (1) wt. % the surface treating agent, Yin discloses that 10.0g of GAP is added to 40 ml of 0-2 mol/L FeCL3 solution; which equates to 0-12.97 g FeCl3, and thus 0-9.6 g assuming it is converted to FeO2 in the adsorbent product, i.e. from 0 to about 50 wt% FeCL3 and 50-100 wt% GAP. And while it is not clear if all of the Fe in solution will end up in the final product, absent teaching otherwise, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use up to the full amount of Fe incorporated into the final product, i.e. from 0 to about 50 wt% FeCL3 and 50-100 wt% GAP in the finally formed product.
With regard to (2) the size of the granules, Yin discloses Granulated attapulgite (GAP) is used in the particle size range of 1.0-2.0 mm, because “natural clay has poor mechanic strength and the powder form of modified clay cannot be used directly in column or fluidized systems due to the excessive pressure drop and separation difficulty resulting from modified clays’ ultrafine particles” (Introduction and 2.2.). Further Murphy discloses similar organoclay (including attapulgite) adsorbent particles with a surface treating agent (alkylamine) for removing impurities from water, including heavy metals, Abstract, [0076]. Wherein it is noted that the particles are preferably in the form of larger granular particles, because the larger granules allow for higher flow rates or a lower back pressure of liquid passing through a column, layer, or bed of the composition, in comparison to very fine particles that provide a high surface area because of their small size [0057]. Wherein:
Useful aluminosilicate substrates include those that would be [0058], [0073]:
20%-100% by weight retained on a #60 mesh screen
80%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen,
95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen.
at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen
not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the product of Yin such that the granules have a particle size range disclosed by Murphy including 95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen and not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm (i.e. 75-100% particles between 2000 micron and 250 micron, where being retained on a #60 mesh screen is interpreted to be particles over 250 micron), because this involves the simple substitution of known particle sizes for attapulgite adsorbent granules for use in a column or fluidized system to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful adsorbent granule product.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 2 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the product of claim 1, wherein, as detailed above, the product may be in the form of granules that are: 20%-100% by weight retained on a #60 mesh screen, 80%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen, 95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen, at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen, not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm. Thus the granules may be at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen, not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm, which means 50%-100% may be greater than 595 micron (i.e. because retained a #30 mesh screen is taken to mean greater than 595 micron), and 0-20 wt% greater than 2 mm; i.e. 30-100 wt% in the range less than 2000 microns to 595 micron; which overlaps the range claimed for total particles in the range of less than 2000 microns to 595 microns, i.e. 60-90 wt%.
Yin in view of Murphy do not further disclose the specific particle size distribution in the range of 595-2000 micron , and thus do not disclose specifically 45 - 65 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through a 18 mesh sieve and to be retained on a 30 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 1000 microns to 595 microns, wherein 15 - 25 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 18 mesh sieve, or granules sized in the range of less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns.
However, as discussed above, Yin and Murphy both disclose the particle size effects their use in columns and other fluidized systems due to effecting backpressure and flow rate, and surface area available for filtration (Yin Introduction and 2.2., Murphy [0057]). Thus particle size is a variable which achieves a recognized result, and one of skill in the art would have been motivated optimize the distribution of particles sizes within the ranges given through routine experimentation by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. Specifically they would be motivated to adjust and optimize the amount of particles that are less than 1000 microns to 595 microns and the amount which are less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns, because this is not limited by the references and because particle size is an establish result effective variable. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 3 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the product of claim 1, wherein the product has a particle size such that it has 95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen [0058], [0073]; thus less than 5% of the product may be in the form of granules and/or particles sized to pass through the 60 mesh sieve, or sized less than 250 microns, as claimed.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 4 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the product of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein: the product has an arsenic removal efficiency of 60 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 4 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the arsenic removal efficiency of 90 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 6 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the arsenic removal efficiency of 95 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 6 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the arsenic removal efficiency of 97 - 100 %, at a loading of 6 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid.
However Yin uses 20g/L concentration of the modified GAP (2.3.), which is close to the claimed 18 g/L, and achieves 90+% removal (Figs. 1, 4 and 5, Sec. 3.3.1.), which is much higher than the minimum removal claimed of 60%. Further, the composition disclosed in Yin in view of Murphy is the same as that of claim 1 and disclosed by Applicants (i.e. iron oxide modified granulated attapulgite). Thus it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the product disclosed by Yin in view of Murphy inherently has the same properties as recited. Specifically, it is asserted that the product has an arsenic removal efficiency of 60 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 4 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 5 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the product of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein: the product has a selenium removal efficiency of 60 - 100 %, at a loading of 1 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the selenium removal efficiency of 80 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 1 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the selenium removal efficiency of 90 - 100 %, at a loading of 1 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the selenium removal efficiency of 95 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 8 - 20 grams of the product per liter of the liquid.
However Yin uses 20g/L concentration of the modified GAP (2.3.), and achieves 90+% removal of arsenic (Figs. 1, 4 and 5, Sec. 3.3.1.); but Yin does not specifically disclose removal of selenium. Further, the composition disclosed in Yin in view of Murphy is the same as that of claim 1 and disclosed by Applicants in Examples 1 and 2 which disclosed similar iron chloride treated granulated attapulgite which adsorb selenium; instant specification [0061], [0062], Fig. 9. See MPEP 2112.01. Thus it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the product disclosed by Yin in view of Murphy inherently has the same properties as recited. Specifically, it is asserted that the product has a selenium removal efficiency of 60 - 100 %, at a loading of 1 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 6 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the product of claim 1, wherein, as detailed above, the product may be in the form of granules that are: 20%-100% by weight retained on a #60 mesh screen, 80%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen, 95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen, at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen, not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm. Thus the granules may be at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen, not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm, which means 50%-100% may be greater than 595 micron (i.e. because retained a #30 mesh screen is taken to mean greater than 595 micron), and 0-20 wt% greater than 2 mm; i.e. 30-100 wt% in the range less than 2000 microns to 595 micron; which overlaps the range claimed for total particles in the range of less than 2000 microns to 595 microns, i.e. 60-100 wt%.
Yin in view of Murphy do not further disclose the specific particle size distribution in the range of 595-2000 micron , and thus do not disclose specifically wherein 35 - 55 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through a 18 mesh sieve and to be retained on a 30 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 1000 microns to 595 microns, wherein 25 - 45 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 18 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns.
However, as discussed above, Yin and Murphy both disclose the particle size effects their use in columns and other fluidized systems due to effecting backpressure and flow rate, and surface area available for filtration (Yin Introduction and 2.2., Murphy [0057]). Thus particle size is a variable which achieves a recognized result, and one of skill in the art would have been motivated optimize the distribution of particles sizes within the ranges given through routine experimentation by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. Specifically they would be motivated to adjust and optimize the amount of particles that are less than 1000 microns to 595 microns and the amount which are less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns, because this is not limited by the references and because particle size is an establish result effective variable. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 7 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the product of claim 1, wherein the liquid includes water wastewater; Yin Title. 3.3.1., 3.3.4.
Regarding Claim 8 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the product of claim 1, wherein, as detailed above, the product may be in the form of granules that are: 20%-100% by weight retained on a #60 mesh screen, 80%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen, 95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen, at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen, not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm. Thus the granules may be at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen, not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm, which means 50%-100% may be greater than 595 micron (i.e. because retained a #30 mesh screen is taken to mean greater than 595 micron), and 0-20 wt% greater than 2 mm; i.e. 30-100 wt% in the range less than 2000 microns to 595 micron; which overlaps the range claimed for total particles in the range of less than 2000 microns to 595 microns, i.e. 55-85 wt%.
Yin in view of Murphy do not further disclose the specific particle size distribution in the range of 595-2000 micron , and thus do not disclose specifically wherein 25 - 35 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 18 mesh sieve and to be retained on a 30 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 1000 microns to 595 microns, wherein 30 - 50 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on a 18 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns.
However, as discussed above, Yin and Murphy both disclose the particle size effects their use in columns and other fluidized systems due to effecting backpressure and flow rate, and surface area available for filtration (Yin Introduction and 2.2., Murphy [0057]). Thus particle size is a variable which achieves a recognized result, and one of skill in the art would have been motivated optimize the distribution of particles sizes within the ranges given through routine experimentation by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. Specifically they would be motivated to adjust and optimize the amount of particles that are less than 1000 microns to 595 microns and the amount which are less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns, because this is not limited by the references and because particle size is an establish result effective variable. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 9 Yin discloses a method of producing a product for adsorbing a heavy metal from a liquid, the method comprising:
surface functionalizing clay (granulated attapulgite, GAP) with a solution, the solution including a surface treating agent (iron chloride which converts to iron oxide), which is/comprises inherently both an arsenic affinity functional group and a selenium affinity functional group,
wherein the components of the product include:
just the clay/GAP and the surface treating agent (i.e. together they are 100 wt% of the particle), but is silent to their respective weight percentage in the product,
wherein the product is in the form of granules having a particle size in the range 1-2 mm (2.2.) (and thus 100% of the granules are expected to a particle size in the rage of 1000-2000 microns);
wherein the clay includes attapulgite, wherein the arsenic/selenium affinity functional groups are deposited on the clay surface, wherein the heavy metal includes arsenic, See Title, Secs. 1., 2.2., 2.3.
Note: Yin only discloses removal of arsenic, and is silent to selenium; thus it is seen to be disclosed that the functional groups have an affinity for arsenic (Abstract, Introduction, 2.3., 3.1.), however, the iron chloride/oxide is also expected, absent evidence to the contrary, to inherently be/comprise a selenium affinity functional group, as evidenced by Applicant’s Examples 1 and 2 which disclosed similar iron chloride treated granulated attapulgite which adsorb selenium; instant specification [0061], [0062], Fig. 9. See MPEP 2112.01.
Yin does not disclose (1) the product includes specifically 70 - 99 wt. % clay and 1 - 30 wt. % the surface treating agent, or (2) wherein 60 - 95 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through a 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on a 60 mesh sieve, or sized in the range of less than 2000 microns to 250 microns.
However, with regard to (1) wt. % the surface treating agent, Yin discloses that 10.0g of GAP is added to 40 ml of 0-2 mol/L FeCL3 solution; which equates to 0-12.97 g FeCl3, and thus 0-9.6 g assuming it is converted to FeO2 in the adsorbent product, i.e. from 0 to about 50 wt% FeCL3 and 50-100 wt% GAP. And while it is not clear if all of the Fe in solution will end up in the final product, absent teaching otherwise, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use up to the full amount of Fe incorporated into the final product, i.e. from 0 to about 50 wt% FeCL3 and 50-100 wt% GAP in the finally formed product.
With regard to (2) the size of the granules, Yin discloses Granulated attapulgite (GAP) is used in the particle size range of 1.0-2.0 mm, because “natural clay has poor mechanic strength and the powder form of modified clay cannot be used directly in column or fluidized systems due to the excessive pressure drop and separation difficulty resulting from modified clays’ ultrafine particles” (Introduction and 2.2.). Further Murphy discloses similar organoclay (including attapulgite) adsorbent particles with a surface treating agent (alkylamine) for removing impurities from water, including heavy metals, Abstract, [0076]. Wherein it is noted that the particles are preferably in the form of larger granular particles, because the larger granules allow for higher flow rates or a lower back pressure of liquid passing through a column, layer, or bed of the composition, in comparison to very fine particles that provide a high surface area because of their small size [0057]. Wherein:
Useful aluminosilicate substrates include those that would be [0058], [0073]:
20%-100% by weight retained on a #60 mesh screen
80%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen,
95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen.
at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen
not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the product of Yin such that the granules have a particle size range disclosed by Murphy including 95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen and not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm (i.e. 75-100% particles between 2000 micron and 250 micron, where being retained on a #60 mesh screen is interpreted to be particles over 250 micron), because this involves the simple substitution of known particle sizes for attapulgite adsorbent granules for use in a column or fluidized system to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful adsorbent granule product.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 10 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the surface treating agent comprises iron chloride and/or iron oxide (i.e. because iron chloride is applied which reacts to form iron oxide); Yin Title, Sec. 2.2.
Regarding Claim 12 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising wherein NaOH is used to adjust pH, including to 7-8 (i.e. neutral) for adsorption experiments (Yin 2.3., 3.3.1.); and thus inherently (see MPEP 2112.01.) discloses neutralizing the pH of the surface functionalized clay with sodium hydroxide.
Regarding Claim 13 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the method of claim 12, wherein, as detailed above, the product may be in the form of granules that are: 20%-100% by weight retained on a #60 mesh screen, 80%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen, 95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen, at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen, not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm. Thus the granules may be at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen, not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm, which means 50%-100% may be greater than 595 micron (i.e. because retained a #30 mesh screen is taken to mean greater than 595 micron), and 0-20 wt% greater than 2 mm; i.e. 30-100 wt% in the range less than 2000 microns to 595 micron; which overlaps the range claimed for total particles in the range of less than 2000 microns to 595 microns, i.e. 60-90 wt%, 60-100 wt% or 55-85 wt%.
Yin in view of Murphy do not further disclose the specific particle size distribution in the range of 595-2000 micron , and thus do not disclose specifically: wherein 45 - 65 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through a 18 mesh sieve and to be retained on a 30 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 1000 microns to 595 microns, wherein 15 - 25 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 18 mesh sieve, or granules sized in the range of less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns; or wherein 35 - 55 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 18 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 30 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 1000 microns to 595 microns, wherein 25 - 45 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 18 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns; or wherein 25 - 35 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 18 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 30 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 1000 microns to 595 microns, wherein 30 - 50 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 18 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns.
However, as discussed above, Yin and Murphy both disclose the particle size effects their use in columns and other fluidized systems due to effecting backpressure and flow rate, and surface area available for filtration (Yin Introduction and 2.2., Murphy [0057]). Thus particle size is a variable which achieves a recognized result, and one of skill in the art would have been motivated optimize the distribution of particles sizes within the ranges given through routine experimentation by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. Specifically they would be motivated to adjust and optimize the amount of particles that are less than 1000 microns to 595 microns and the amount which are less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns, because this is not limited by the references and because particle size is an establish result effective variable. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 14 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising drying the clay after the surface treating, wherein the surface treating solution is dried on the clay of the product produced; (“Fe-impregnated charred GAP was prepared by adding 10.0 g charred GAP into 40 ml of iron salt solution (FeCl3.6H2O) with 0 to 2 mol/L under continuous strong agitation using a magnetic stirrer for 24 h, and then dried at 90 °C for another 24 h” Yin 2.2.)
Regarding Claim 15 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the method of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein: the product has an arsenic removal efficiency of 60 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 4 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the arsenic removal efficiency of 90 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 6 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the arsenic removal efficiency of 95 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 6 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the arsenic removal efficiency of 97 - 100 %, at a loading of 6 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid.
However Yin uses 20g/L concentration of the modified GAP (2.3.), which is close to the claimed 18 g/L, and achieves 90+% removal (Figs. 1, 4 and 5, Sec. 3.3.1.), which is much higher than the minimum removal claimed of 60%. Further, the composition disclosed in Yin in view of Murphy is the same as that of claim 1 and disclosed by Applicants (i.e. iron oxide modified granulated attapulgite). Thus it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the product disclosed by Yin in view of Murphy inherently has the same properties as recited. Specifically, it is asserted that the product has an arsenic removal efficiency of 60 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 4 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 16 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the method of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein: the product has a selenium removal efficiency of 60 - 100 %, at a loading of 1 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the selenium removal efficiency of 80 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 1 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the selenium removal efficiency of 90 - 100 %, at a loading of 1 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid; or the product has the selenium removal efficiency of 95 - 100 % in the liquid, at a loading of 8 - 20 grams of the product per liter of the liquid.
However Yin uses 20g/L concentration of the modified GAP (2.3.), and achieves 90+% removal of arsenic (Figs. 1, 4 and 5, Sec. 3.3.1.); but Yin does not specifically disclose removal of selenium. Further, the composition disclosed in Yin in view of Murphy is the same as that of claim 1 and disclosed by Applicants in Examples 1 and 2 which disclosed similar iron chloride treated granulated attapulgite which adsorb selenium; instant specification [0061], [0062], Fig. 9. See MPEP 2112.01. Thus it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the product disclosed by Yin in view of Murphy inherently has the same properties as recited. Specifically, it is asserted that the product has a selenium removal efficiency of 60 - 100 %, at a loading of 1 - 18 grams of the product per liter of the liquid. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 17 Yin discloses a method for adsorbing at least one heavy metal in a liquid, the method comprising:
contacting the liquid with a product, the product comprising clay that has been surface functionalized with a surface treating agent (iron chloride which converts to iron oxide), which is/comprises inherently both an arsenic affinity functional group and a selenium affinity functional group; and
separating the liquid from the product to recover a resultant liquid that has a lower amount of arsenic than the liquid had prior to the contacting,
wherein the components of the product include:
just the clay/GAP and the surface treating agent (i.e. together they are 100 wt% of the particle), but is silent to their respective weight percentage in the product,
wherein the product is in the form of granules having a particle size in the range 1-2 mm (2.2.) (and thus 100% of the granules are expected to a particle size in the rage of 1000-2000 microns);
wherein the clay includes attapulgite, wherein, the arsenic affinity functional groups are deposited on the clay surface,
wherein the product is loaded in the liquid at a weight percentage to have a removal efficiency for arsenic in the liquid of 95-99%, See Figs. 1, 4 and 5, Title, Secs. 1., 2.2., 2.3, 3.3.1.
Note: Yin only discloses removal of arsenic, and is silent to selenium; thus it is seen to be disclosed that the functional groups have an affinity for arsenic (Abstract, Introduction, 2.3., 3.1.), however, the iron chloride/oxide is also expected, absent evidence to the contrary, to inherently be/comprise a selenium affinity functional group, as evidenced by Applicant’s Examples 1 and 2 which disclosed similar iron chloride treated granulated attapulgite which adsorb selenium; instant specification [0061], [0062], Fig. 9. See MPEP 2112.01.
Yin does not disclose (1) the product includes specifically 70 - 99 wt. % clay and 1 - 30 wt. % the surface treating agent, or (2) wherein 60 - 95 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through a 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on a 60 mesh sieve, or sized in the range of less than 2000 microns to 250 microns.
However, with regard to (1) wt. % the surface treating agent, Yin discloses that 10.0g of GAP is added to 40 ml of 0-2 mol/L FeCL3 solution; which equates to 0-12.97 g FeCl3, and thus 0-9.6 g assuming it is converted to FeO2 in the adsorbent product, i.e. from 0 to about 50 wt% FeCL3 and 50-100 wt% GAP. And while it is not clear if all of the Fe in solution will end up in the final product, absent teaching otherwise, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use up to the full amount of Fe incorporated into the final product, i.e. from 0 to about 50 wt% FeCL3 and 50-100 wt% GAP in the finally formed product.
With regard to (2) the size of the granules, Yin discloses Granulated attapulgite (GAP) is used in the particle size range of 1.0-2.0 mm, because “natural clay has poor mechanic strength and the powder form of modified clay cannot be used directly in column or fluidized systems due to the excessive pressure drop and separation difficulty resulting from modified clays’ ultrafine particles” (Introduction and 2.2.). Further Murphy discloses similar organoclay (including attapulgite) adsorbent particles with a surface treating agent (alkylamine) for removing impurities from water, including heavy metals, Abstract, [0076]. Wherein it is noted that the particles are preferably in the form of larger granular particles, because the larger granules allow for higher flow rates or a lower back pressure of liquid passing through a column, layer, or bed of the composition, in comparison to very fine particles that provide a high surface area because of their small size [0057]. Wherein:
Useful aluminosilicate substrates include those that would be [0058], [0073]:
20%-100% by weight retained on a #60 mesh screen
80%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen,
95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen.
at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen
not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the product of Yin such that the granules have a particle size range disclosed by Murphy including 95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen and not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm (i.e. 75-100% particles between 2000 micron and 250 micron, where being retained on a #60 mesh screen is interpreted to be particles over 250 micron), because this involves the simple substitution of known particle sizes for attapulgite adsorbent granules for use in a column or fluidized system to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful adsorbent granule product.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 18 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the liquid includes water or wastewater; Yin Title. 3.3.1., 3.3.4.
Regarding Claim 19 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the method of claim 17, wherein, as detailed above, the product may be in the form of granules that are: 20%-100% by weight retained on a #60 mesh screen, 80%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen, 95%-100% retention on a #60 mesh screen, at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen, not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm. Thus the granules may be at least about 50% by weight of the material is retained on a #30 mesh screen, not over 20% by weight of the particles are over about 2 mm, which means 50%-100% may be greater than 595 micron (i.e. because retained a #30 mesh screen is taken to mean greater than 595 micron), and 0-20 wt% greater than 2 mm; i.e. 30-100 wt% in the range less than 2000 microns to 595 micron; which overlaps the range claimed for total particles in the range of less than 2000 microns to 595 microns, i.e. 60-90 wt%, 60-100 wt% or 55-85 wt%.
Yin in view of Murphy do not further disclose the specific particle size distribution in the range of 595-2000 micron , and thus do not disclose specifically: wherein 45 - 65 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through a 18 mesh sieve and to be retained on a 30 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 1000 microns to 595 microns, wherein 15 - 25 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 18 mesh sieve, or granules sized in the range of less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns; or wherein 35 - 55 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 18 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 30 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 1000 microns to 595 microns, wherein 25 - 45 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 18 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns; or wherein 25 - 35 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 18 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 30 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 1000 microns to 595 microns, wherein 30 - 50 % of the product is in the form of granules sized to pass through the 10 mesh sieve and to be retained on the 18 mesh sieve, or granules sized in a range of less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns.
However, as discussed above, Yin and Murphy both disclose the particle size effects their use in columns and other fluidized systems due to effecting backpressure and flow rate, and surface area available for filtration (Yin Introduction and 2.2., Murphy [0057]). Thus particle size is a variable which achieves a recognized result, and one of skill in the art would have been motivated optimize the distribution of particles sizes within the ranges given through routine experimentation by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. Specifically they would be motivated to adjust and optimize the amount of particles that are less than 1000 microns to 595 microns and the amount which are less than 2000 microns to 1000 microns, because this is not limited by the references and because particle size is an establish result effective variable. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 20 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the method of claim 17, wherein “more than 99% of As (Ⅴ) and 95% of As (Ⅲ) can be removed by Fe-impregnated charred GAP within 0.5 h using 5 mg/L of As Ⅲ and As Ⅴ concentration” (Yin Fig. 5., Sec. 3.3.1), and thus the product is loaded in the liquid at a weight percentage to have a removal efficiency for arsenic and/or selenium in the liquid of 95-99 %.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Murphy and further in view of US 20230048090 (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 11 Yin in view of Murphy discloses the method of claim 9, but does not disclose further comprising mixing a binder solution with the clay.
However, Wang discloses a similar product for adsorbing heavy metals which comprises a surface treated granulated attapulgite, wherein it is disclosed the attapulgite may be agglomerated with or without a binder; Abstract, [0014], [0016]-[0017], [0035]
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yin in view of Murphy by mixing a binder with the clay.
While it is not specifically disclosed that the binder is provided as a binder solution to mix with the clay, as Wang does not disclose the details of the binder mixing, one of skill in the art would have chosen from the finite forms of adding in the binder, including dry or in a liquid (i.e. a solution), and thus before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mix a binder solution with the clay.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights