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(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 1-8, 10, and 16 are 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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 16 use the phrase “preferably” followed by a limitation. The use of “preferably” is indefinite as it is unclear if the following limitation is required or not. For the purpose of a prior art search and consideration any limitation following “preferably” is not considered as limiting to the claim.
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 1-8, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krahnstover et al. and further in view of Altmann et al. (Altmann et al., Water Research, Volume 94, 1 May 2016, Pages 240-245).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8: Krahnstover et al. teach a method comprising dosing PAC (powdered activated carbon) having particle sizes of 1-50um (Table 1) and/or less than 1um (page 5746, col. 2, 1. 2. 2). The PAC is dosed in the form of a feed slurry (page 5747, 1.3.2). The PAC is separated using a cloth filter (page 5747, 1.3.2; Fig. 1, D). The contact time includes 5-15 minutes (page 5747, 1.3.2) which significantly overlaps with the claimed range. They teach measuring the
Krahnstover et al. do not teach dosing the PAC based on concentration of dissolved organic substances at the inlet.
Altmann et al. teach measuring relative organic micropollutant concentration via UV absorbance (abstract) and using those measurements to adapt PAC dosing strategies (abstract). The relative concentration is monitored/measured at the outlet to determine break through (Image). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to measure the amount of organic material in the influent and adjust the PAC concentration in order to use only the necessary amount of PAC. Monitoring the relative concentration at the outlet would be beneficial for ensuring that there is not significant break through of the PAC into the effluent which would cause contamination.
Claim 2: There is no specific active step required in Claim 2. However, to advance prosecution, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to return the effluent from the outlet to the inlet if a set value is exceeded in order to treat the water again for proper removal and to meet necessary standards of treatment.
Claim 3: a preferred concentration is 15-30 mg/L (page 5746, 1.3.1).
Claim 10: the method is a multi-stage method (Fig. 1).
Claims 7 and 16: the process includes adding a flocculant (additive) including iron sulfate (page 5748, 2.1.1). The flocculant does is a well-recognized result effective variable that is adjusted based on the PAC does or the plan influent (page 5749, col. 2). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 pm.
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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights