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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 7 recites the particle size as 3-5 microns, which is in a different range from the 5-150 microns range of claim 5 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Correcting the dependency to claim 4 would resolve this issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Use of elemental sulfur is well-known for removal of mercury and mercury ions from water, air and other environments. Claim 1 is directed to removing divalent mercury from a matrix by mixing sulfur powder and a mercapto reagent with the matrix under a wide pH control. Applicant defines matrix as either a water solution containing mercury or a material with surface-contamination of mercury. Use of the recited meracpto reagents in removing of mercury from water is taught by JP-H_11128904 which is the closest for this teaching. However, this JP reference teaches these mercapto compounds as mixed with microorganisms, not with elemental sulfur powder. Adding elemental sulfur to this mix would not be not obvious because the mercapto compounds has reactive sulfur, and it is unsure if the sulfur would adversely affect the microorganism, which would beat the purpose of this JP reference.
CN 102583685 teaches mixing cysteine or mercaptosuccinic acids with zinc or copper or iron compounds and calcium or magnesium salts at pH 5-8, but not with elemental sulfur. In this case also, adding sulfur to these concoctions is not immediately envisaged (no suggestion or motivation), and could be considered messy and counter-productive.
Atwood et al, “Mercury Removal from Water,” Struct Bond (2006) 120: 163–182 teaches various methods of removing mercury from water, but fails to teach the combination of reagents as claimed. Also, from the wide selection of the possible methods, narrowing down to what applicant claims is also not realistic without the benefit of applicant’s disclosure.
Bookbinder et al, US 2011/0247312 teaches a coated substrate for flowing liquid or gas streams contaminated with heavy metals including mercury for removal of such heavy metals. The coating includes many chemicals including elemental sulfur and many mercapto compounds including cysteine, but does not teach a combination of cysteine and sulfur as the coating.
Thus none of the references teach the method of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights