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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, 14-30, 34-36, 40, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chittoo (Adsorption Using Lime-Iron Sludge–Encapsulated Calcium Alginate Beads for Phosphate Recovery with ANN- and RSM-Optimized Encapsulation, 2019), in view of Barrett (Development of a New, Effective and Low-cost Media for Sustainable Management of Polluted Road Stormwater in Highly Urbanized Areas: Wood Mulch Coated with Aluminum-and Iron-Based Water Treatment Residuals, 2018), or Barrett in view of Chittoo, in view of Park (US 6,989,102).
With respect to claims 1, 28, 35, 36, Chittoo teaches adsorption using sludge encapsulated calcium alginate (abstract), low cost adsorbents generated from waste materials and industrial by products are attractive alternatives to high cost commercial adsorbents such as ferric oxide, activated aluminum oxide, activated carbon due to high oxide content and encapsuling these low cost adsorbents allows for large scale application, as in powder form, they suffer from difficulties including separation from water, and the encapsulation allows for maintaining high adsorption capacity; alginates are low cost biodegradable biopolymers that form stable hydrogels in the presence of divalent cations by cross-linking and the resulting porous hydrogels allow solutes to diffuse in and out making contact with encapsulated material (Introduction), adsorbent prepared by pulverizing sludge (grinding), sodium alginate dissolved in water and mixed with the sludge (mixing said powder with a biopolymer solution, thereby creating a solution), and subsequently added to calcium chloride (adding into an ionic crosslinker) (Materials and Methods). Chitto does not teach coating mulch chips with said coating solution, thereby creating coated mulch chips; and adding said coated mulch chips into an ionic crosslinker).
Barrett teaches wood mulch coated with aluminum-based water treatment residuals (WTR) for the removal of pollutants from stormwater (abstract, executive summary, a method for preparing a green product capable of removing contaminants from stormwater), where WTR is ground (2.1, grinding aluminum-based water treatment residuals into a powder, which comprises ground aluminum-based water treatment residuals), and glued to the mulch (2.4, coating mulch chips). Barrett does not teach mixing said powder with a biopolymer solution creating a coating solution; coating mulch chips with said coating solution, and adding said coated mulch chips into an ionic crosslinker.
Park teaches alginate gel adsorbents containing activated carbon to remove heavy metal ions where the adsorbent can be prepared by coating onto a supporter such as paper, wood, or fabric (abstract, C5/L50-57, coating mulch, prepared by adding alginate (a biopolymer) to a polyvalent cationic cross-linking solution, where the adsorbent is coated onto the supporter by immersing the supporter in alginate solution (coating mulch chips with said coating solution, thereby creating coated mulch chips), then immersing the supporter in the polyvalent solution forming alginate gel on the surface of the supporter (and adding said coated mulch chips into an ionic crosslinker), and drying the supporter formed with alginate gel, and it is preferable to use paper, wood plate and textile fabrics so the gel is not separated from the supporter during the water purification process due to forming Van-der-Waals bonding or hydrogen bonding between the gel and the sugars of the supporter to obtain a thin adsorbent which speeds up treating water and the supporter can be selectively prepared as a form which can be easily applied to each water purification process (C6/L15-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barrett’s taught method and mulch to include Chitoo’s alginate encapsulated adsorbent as according to Chittoo the powdered residuals are not practical for large scale application and the encapsulation allows for maintaining high adsorption capacity, or alternatively to modify Chittoo’s taught method and adsorbent for phosphate recovery to include Barrett’s mulch substrate as according to Barrett composite filter media consisting of wood mulch and WTR may provide a promising solution to reduce pollutants in urban runoff (p. 11), and to coat mulch chips with said coating solution, and add said coated mulch chips into the ionic crosslinker as described by Park so the alginate gel is not separated from the supporter during water purification.
With respect to claim 2, the method of Claim 1 is taught above. Barrett teaches testing the WTR for toxicity (2.3, a step of evaluating said aluminum-based water treatment residuals for toxicity). While Barrett appears to teach testing of the ground WTR, not before grinding, absent evidence of criticality, any order to processing steps is obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. C., selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
With respect to claim 3, the method of Claim 1 is taught above. Barrett teaches WTR typically use Al salts as coagulating agents (p. 11, said aluminum-based water treatment residuals comprise aluminum salts).
With respect to claim 4, the method of Claim 1 is taught above. Barrett teaches pollutant removal of stormwater as discussed above and testing WTR (2.2, step of evaluating said aluminum-based water treatment residuals for their potential to remove contaminants from stormwater).
With respect to claim 5, the method of Claim 1 is taught above. Chittoo teaches pulverized sludge sieved through a 710 micron sieve (Materials and Methods), Barret teaches sieving through a 2 mm sieve (2.1), step of sieving said ground aluminum-based water treatment residuals through a sieve. While the taught combination does not explicitly teach the recited 1 mm, as Chitto teaches 0.71 mm and Barrett teaches 2 mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sieve in that range and to optimize the sieving size depending feed stock and desired surface area of the sorbent.
With respect to claim 6, the method of Claim 1 is taught above. Chittoo and Park each teach alginates as discussed above, said biopolymer solution comprises alginate.
With respect to claim 7, the method of Claim 6 is taught above. teaches Chittoo teaches varying ranges of adsorbent, alginate and CaChl2, including ground aluminum-based water treatment residuals are added at the ratio of 15% weight/volume to 2% weight/volume alginate biopolymer solution (Materials and Methods).
With respect to claims 11, 34, 40, the method of Claim 1, is taught above. Chittoo teaches CaCl2 (Materials and methods), Park teaches calcium (abstract), wherein said ionic crosslinker comprises a solution which includes calcium.
With respect to claim 14, the method of Claim 1, is taught above. Barrett teaches testing the WTR for toxicity (2.3, a step of testing said ground aluminum-based water treatment residuals for toxicity).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, the method of Claim 1, is taught above. Barrett teaches adjusting the pH of using acetic acid and washing (p. 13, washing said ground aluminum-based water treatment residuals with an acid).
With respect to claim 17, the method of Claim 1, is taught above. Barrett teaches evaluating said ground aluminum- based water treatment residuals for their sorbent/reactivity potential (2.2).
With respect to claim 18, the method of Claim 17, is taught above. Barrett teaches extractable Al measured using acid ammonium oxalate (p. 13-14, evaluating step is performed based on oxalate- extractable aluminum concentration.)
With respect to claim 19-20, the method of Claim 17, is taught above. Barrett appears to teach the same measuring method as that disclosed in the instant specification (see instant 0030), absent clarification of differences over the prior art, Barrett’s measurement appears to measure concentration of amorphous aluminum oxide in said ground aluminum-based water treatment residuals, the concentration of amorphous aluminum hydroxide in said ground aluminum-based water treatment residuals.
With respect to claims 21, 22, the method of Claim 1, is taught above. Barrett teaches rinsing and air drying Al-WTR coated mulch (p. 7, p. 22, Fig. 5further comprising the step of washing said green product, thereby creating a washed green product.
With respect to claim 23 and 41, the method of Claims 1, 35, are taught above. Barrett teaches different mass ratios of mulch to WTR were studied, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratios of coating solution similarly to 45% weight/volume, to ensure coverage.
With respect to claims 24, 25, the method of Claim 1, is taught above. Barrett teaches the mulch can be installed in low impact development infiltration and bioretention systems step of applying said green product on the ground of a bioretention system, retrofitting stormwater best management processes by replacing regular mulch with said green product (introduction, conclusion).
With respect to claim 26, the method of Claim 1, is taught above. Barrett teaches drying said aluminum-based water treatment residuals prior to said grinding step (2.1).
With respect to claim 27, the method of Claim 1 is taught above. The taught combination teaches a green-engineered mulch product made by the method of claim 1.
With respect to claim 29, the coating of claim 28 is taught above. The taught combination provides the recited method and coating, absent clarification of differences, the coating does not allow water to pass through it, is considered inherent.
Claim(s) 8-9, 31, 32, 37, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chittoo (Adsorption Using Lime-Iron Sludge–Encapsulated Calcium Alginate Beads for Phosphate Recovery with ANN- and RSM-Optimized Encapsulation, 2019), in view of Barrett (Development of a New, Effective and Low-cost Media for Sustainable Management of Polluted Road Stormwater in Highly Urbanized Areas: Wood Mulch Coated with Aluminum-and Iron-Based Water Treatment Residuals, 2018), or Barrett in view of Chittoo, in view of Park (US 6,989,102), in view of Bezbaruah (US PG Pub 2016/0031766).
With respect to claim 8, 9, 31, 32, 37, 38 the method of Claim 1 and coating of claim 28,are taught above. Chittoo and Park each teach alginates as discussed above, Part teaches it is possible to use polymers originated from plants and animals (C1/50-65), the taught combination does not teach a biopolymer solution comprises chitosan, pectin.
Bezbaruah teaches calcium alginate entrapped sorbent particles (abstract, 0009), the remediation material is composed of particles entrapped or encapsulated in a polymer, preferably a natural polymer such as alginate, collagen, carboxymethylchitin, chitin, cellulose, pectin, agarose, chitosan, carrageenan, and plant-derived gums, in order to enhance biodegradability and increase the “green” content of the remediation material, synthetic polymers can be employed as well, in addition to or in place of natural polymers (0065), and selection of polymer because of abundance, ease of use, and biocompatibility, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the taught adsorbent composition to comprise chitosan, pectin, or a gum, as the use of these is known in the art for use in sorbent encapsulated alginates as shown by Bezburah and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
Claim(s) 10, 33, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chittoo (Adsorption Using Lime-Iron Sludge–Encapsulated Calcium Alginate Beads for Phosphate Recovery with ANN- and RSM-Optimized Encapsulation, 2019), in view of Barrett (Development of a New, Effective and Low-cost Media for Sustainable Management of Polluted Road Stormwater in Highly Urbanized Areas: Wood Mulch Coated with Aluminum-and Iron-Based Water Treatment Residuals, 2018), or Barrett in view of Chittoo, in view of Park (US 6,989,102), in view of Lazaro (Heavy metal biosorption by gellan gum gel beads, 2001).
With respect to claims 10, 33, 39, Chittoo and Park each teach alginates as discussed above and adsorption of heavy metals, Park teaches it is possible to use polymers originated from plants and animals (C1/50-65), the taught combination does not teach a biopolymer solution comprises gellan gum.
Lazaro teaches heave metal biosorption by gellan gum beads (abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the taught combination to include gellan gum as gellan gum is known for use in biosorption of heavy metals and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Chittoo and Park each teach calcium crosslinkers, and while the use of eggshell is known in the art for use as an adsorbent, see Mikula (Preparation of hydrogel composites using Ca2+ and Cu2+ ions as crosslinking agents, 2019), Mikula teaches biopolymer composite adsorbents with immobilized eggshells (abstract), however, Mikula teaches the calcium used for crosslinking is from added CaCl2, not the eggshell, that the eggshell is ground, but not dissolved in acetic acid (Materials). The prior art does not provide teaching or motivation to use a crosslinker comprising calcium wherein the calcium is prepared by dissolving eggshell powder in acetic acid, or said eggshell powder is 6% weight/volume and said acetic acid is 10% volume/volume during preparation of said calcium in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571 270-7872. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights