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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 20230078847) A1 herein known as Wei, in view of Haase (US 20030209499 A1) herein known as Haase.
Regarding Claim 1, Wei is directed to the field of papermaking. More particularly, the disclosure relates to compositions and particles that may be used in a papermaking process [0001] .
Wei discloses a method of aqueous treatment in process water comprising: adding a treatment polymer and an inorganic salt to the water source (Abstract; [0006], [0022], [0038], [0106], [0110] [0118]-[0119]), wherein a weight ratio of the inorganic salt to the treatment polymer added to the water source is from about 0.1:99 to about 99:0.1 which overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.05:1 to 100:1 ([0013], [0030]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of about 0.1:99 to about 99:0.1 overlaps the claimed range of about 0.05:1 to 100:1. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Wei discloses “treating a component of the papermaking process with the colloidal particle” ([118]) and “the component is located in the papermaking process water, such as the water of the thin stock, thick stock, furnish, pulp slurry, etc.” ([119]).
Wei does not disclose a method of removing suspended solids from water .
Haase is directed to processes and improved processes for clarifying waters and wastewaters (raw waters), thereby removing organic and inorganic contaminants from said raw waters [0002].
Haase disclose a method of removing suspended solids from water ([0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wei ‘s method of aqueous treatment in process water, as taught by Haase, to a method of removing suspended solids from water because both references are directed to aqueous/coagulant/flocculation systems using similar chemistries (See Haase, Abstract; [0006], [0022], [0106], [0118]-[0119]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Wei discloses the method wherein the inorganic salt is selected from the group consisting of an aluminum salt, a ferric salt, and any combination thereof ([0006], [0022], [0037], [0039]).
Regarding Claim 3-4, Under the principles of inherency, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable (MPEP 2112 (I)), therefore Claim 3 ( The treatment polymer comprises a Huggins constant of about 0.0 to about 1 and Claim 4 ( The method wherein the treatment polymer comprises a conformation plot slope of about 0.05 to about 1) are obvious over Wei, since Wei discloses the same polymer used in the present application.
Regarding Claim 5, Wei discloses the method wherein the aluminum salt is selected from the group consisting of aluminum chloride, aluminum chloride hydrate, aluminum sulfate, alum, polyaluminum sulfate, polyaluminum chloride (PAC), aluminum chlorohydrate, a compound having the formula AlnCl(3n-m)(OH)m, wherein m is an integer from 0 – 100, n is an integer from 1 – 100, and m is less than 3n, and any combination thereof ([0063], [0111]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wei discloses the method wherein the ferric salt is selected from the group consisting of ferric chloride, ferric sulfate, a polyferric salt, and any combination thereof ([0064], [0112]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wei discloses the method wherein a composition comprises the treatment polymer and the inorganic salt, further wherein the composition comprises a pH from about 1.0 to about 8.5 ([0106]).
Regarding Claim 8, Wei discloses the method wherein the treatment polymer is added to the water source before, after, and/or with the inorganic salt ([0119],[ the colloidal particle is added to the process water to carry out the “treating” step. In certain embodiments, a polymer and inorganic salt, such as an aluminum salt and/or ferric salt, are added to the process water. The polymer and salt may be added together in a single composition, may be added separately in any order, and/or may be co-fed into the process water]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wei discloses the method wherein the treatment polymer comprises a monomer selected from the group consisting of an anionic monomer, a cationic monomer, a non-ionic monomer, a zwitterionic monomer, and any combination thereof [0041]].
Regarding Claim 10, Wei discloses the method wherein the treatment polymer comprises a monomer selected from the group consisting of acrylamide, methacrylamide, 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylate (“DMAEA”), 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate (“DMAEM”), 3-(dimethylamino)propyl methacrylamide (“DMAPMA”), 3-(dimethylamino)propyl acrylamide (“DMAPA”), 3 methacrylamidopropyl-trimethyl-ammonium chloride (“MAPTAC”), 3-acrylamidopropyl-trimethyl-ammonium chloride (“APTAC”), N-vinyl pyrrolidone (“NVP”), diallyldimethylammonium chloride (“DADMAC”), diallylamine, 2-(acryloyloxy)-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (“DMAEA.MCQ”), 2-(methacryloyloxy)-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium chloride (“DMAEM.MCQ”), N,N-dimethylaminoethyl acrylate benzyl chloride (“DMAEA.BCQ”), N,N-dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate benzyl chloride (“DMAEM.BCQ”), 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid (“AMPS”), 2-acrylamido-2-methylbutane sulfonic acid (“AMBS”), acrylamide tertbutylsulfonate (“ATBS”), [2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)amino]propyl]-phosphonic acid, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, maleic acid, itaconic acid, a glyoxalated polyacrylamide (GPAM), a polyvinylamine (PVAM), a polyethylenimine (PEI), a polyamidoamine epichlorohydrin (PAE), a salt of any of the foregoing monomer units, and any combination thereof ([0009], [0027] [0076]-[0077] [0080]- [0081]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wei discloses the method wherein the polymer is cationic, anionic, zwitterionic, non-ionic, amphoteric with a net positive charge or amphoteric with a net negative charge ([0016]).
Regarding Claim 12, Wei discloses the method wherein the polymer comprises less than about 25 mol % of a carboxylic acid ([0036],[The polymer comprises from about 1 mol % to about 8 mol % of the carboxylic acid]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wei discloses the method further comprising forming a colloidal particle with the treatment polymer and the inorganic salt and adding the colloidal particle to the water source (([0022], [0038]).
Regarding Claim 14, Wei discloses the method further comprising forming a colloidal particle in the water source with the treatment polymer and the inorganic salt [0038].
Regarding Claim 15, Wei discloses the method wherein the colloidal particle comprises the treatment polymer embedded within a colloidal aluminum hydroxide complex and/or a colloidal ferric hydroxide complex ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 16 and 18, Wei teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Wei is silent to the method wherein the water source is a wastewater, a raw water, or a combination thereof (Claim 16), the method further comprising adding a flocculant to the water source (Claim 18).
Haase discloses to the method wherein the water source is a wastewater, a raw water, or a combination thereof (Claim 16) (Abstract; [0002], 0046] , [0056]), the method further comprising adding a flocculant to the water source (Claim 18) ([0124]- [0125]).
Regarding Claim 17, Wei discloses the method wherein a pH of the water source is adjusted to between about 5 and about 14 ([0106].
Regarding Claim 19, Wei is directed to the field of papermaking. More particularly, the disclosure relates to compositions and particles that may be used in a papermaking process [0001] .
Wei discloses “treating a component of the papermaking process with the colloidal particle” ([118]) and “the component is located in the papermaking process water, such as the water of the thin stock, thick stock, furnish, pulp slurry, etc.” ([119]).
Wei discloses a method of aqueous treatment in process water, comprising: adding a composition to the water source, wherein the composition comprises a colloidal particle, the colloidal particle comprising a polymer embedded within a colloidal aluminum hydroxide complex and/or a colloidal ferric hydroxide complex (Abstract, [0022], [0038], [0040], [0110]).
Wei does not disclose a method of removing suspended solids from a water source.
Haase is directed to processes and improved processes for clarifying waters and wastewaters (raw waters), thereby removing organic and inorganic contaminants from said raw waters [0002].
Haase discloses a method of removing suspended solids from a water source ([0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wei ‘s method of aqueous treatment in process water, as taught by Haase, to a method of removing suspended solids from a water source because both references are directed to aqueous/coagulat/flocculation systems using similar chemistries (See Haase, Abstract; [0006], [0022], [0106], [0118]-[0119]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 20, Wei discloses a method of aqueous treatment in process water, comprising: adding a composition to the water source, wherein the composition comprises a colloidal particle, the colloidal particle comprising a polymer embedded within a colloidal aluminum hydroxide complex and/or a colloidal ferric hydroxide complex (Abstract, [0022], [0038], [0040], [119]).
Wei does not disclose a method of reducing turbidity of a water source.
Haase is directed to processes and improved processes for clarifying waters and wastewaters (raw waters), thereby removing organic and inorganic contaminants from said raw waters [0002].
Haase discloses a method of reducing turbidity of a water source (Abstract; [0052], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wei ‘s method of aqueous treatment in process water, as taught by Haase, to a method of reducing turbidity of a water source in order to improve processes of clarifying waters and wastewaters because both references are directed to aqueous/coagulant/flocculation systems using similar chemistries (See Haase, Abstract; [0002], [0052], [0059], [0018]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Related prior art discloses a method of removing suspended solids from a water source includes Escudrro et al. (FR 2870229 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-6535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm.
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.
/MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights