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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte (US5348665) in view of Wahyuni ("Removal of Pb(II) ions in the aqueous solution by photo-Fenton method") above, and further in view of Barazesh ("Modular Advanced Oxidation Processes Enabled by Cathodic Hydrogen Peroxide Production").
Regarding claim 1, Schulte discloses a method to oxidize harmful substances in water comprising: adding an amount of at least one of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), hypochlorous acid (HOCl), or chloramine (NH2Cl) to the potable water to form a solution (Schulte abstract and claim 11 teaches degradation of harmful substances in water by adding hydrogen peroxide); and exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation to form a catalyst including at least one of a hydroxyl radical, a reactive chlorine species, or a reactive amine species to oxidize the inorganic contaminant (Schulte claim 11 “irradiating the water and hydrogen peroxide in the reaction zone with ultraviolet radiation…such that the hydrogen peroxide forms hydroxyl radicals which oxidize the harmful substance in the water”).
Schulte does not expressly teach that the harmful substance is an inorganic contaminant entrained in potable water.
Wahyuni teaches that lead ions, which are inorganic contaminants, were known to be oxidized by hydroxyl radicals generated in a UV/H2O2 containing system. In particular, Wahyuni teaches decreasing the concentration of Pb(II) ions in aqueous solution by a photo-Fenton process under UV light, wherein the process uses H2O2 and UV light to generate hydroxyl radicals (Wahyuni p. 181 “H2O2 + UV → 2 ∙OH”) and further teaches that Pb2+ is oxidized by hydroxyl radicals to form PbO2 (Wahyuni abstract and p. 180).
Barazesh teaches that point-of-use and point-of-entry drinking water treatment systems are useful for providing potable water and that such systems must address toxic trace elements including lead (Barazesh p. 195). Barazesh further teaches a modular treatment system using H2O2 and UV photolysis for distributed drinking-water treatment, and reports that dissolved arsenic, lead and copper in contaminated groundwater were converted into colloid-associated forms removable by filtration when water passed through the treatment system. Thus Barazesh provides express motivation to apply UV/H2O2-based treatment to drinking water or potable water contexts containing toxic trace elements such as lead.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schulte’s UV/H2O2 water-treatment method so that the harmful substance being treated is an inorganic lead contaminant in potable or drinking water, as taught or suggested by Wahyuni and Barazesh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Schulte teaches that UV irradiation of H2O2 forms hydroxyl radicals generated in a UV/H2O2-containing system oxidize Pb(II) to PbO2, and Barazesh teaches the desirability of treating drinking-water sources to remove toxic trace elements including lead. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Schulte expressly teaches that UV/H2O2 generates hydroxyl radicals for oxidation in water, and Wahyuni confirms that such hydroxyl radicals oxidize Pb(II), an inorganic contaminant, to PbO2.
Regarding claim 2, Schulte in view of Wahyuni and further in view of Barazesh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the inorganic contaminant is a lead-based substance (Wahyuni Title and p. 180 “Pb(II) ions”) and exposing the solution includes exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation to oxidize the lead-based substance (Wahyuni p. 181 “H2O2 + UV → 2 ∙OH”).
Regarding claim 3, Schulte in view of Wahyuni and further in view of Barazesh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the inorganic contaminant is a lead-based substance (Wahyuni Title and p. 180 “Pb(II) ions”), adding an amount includes adding an amount of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to the potable water to form a solution (Schulte abstract and claim 11 teaches degradation of harmful substances in water by adding hydrogen peroxide); and exposing the solution includes exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation to form a hydroxyl radical to oxidize the lead-based substance (Schulte abstract and claim 11 “ultraviolet radiation” under suggestion by Wahyuni that the harmful substance is a lead-based substance).
Regarding claim 5, Schulte in view of Wahyuni and further in view of Barazesh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation includes exposing the solution to UV radiation with a wavelength in a range of about 10 nanometers to about 400 nanometers (Schulte col. 1 discloses various wavelengths within this range).
Regarding claim 6, Schulte in view of Wahyuni and further in view of Barazesh discloses the method of claim 5, wherein exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation includes exposing the solution to UV radiation with a wavelength of about 254 nanometers (Schulte col. 1 discloses 254 nm).
Regarding claim 7, Schulte in view of Wahyuni and further in view of Barazesh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation includes exposing the solution to UV radiation for an amount of time in a range of about 0.01 seconds to about 10 minutes (Schulte abstract teaches treatment in a continuous flow reactor wherein “an amount of water to be treated is 0.25 to 25 times the amount of the intrinsic volume of the reactor flows through the reactor per hour”; at the disclosed upper flow rate of 25 reactor volumes per hour, the residence/exposure time is about 1/25 hour, i.e., about 2.4 minutes, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, Schulte in view of Wahyuni and further in view of Barazesh discloses the method of claim 1, comprising adjusting the solution pH to a range of about 6 to about 8 before exposing the solution to the source of UV radiation (Barazesh p. 196 table 1 “pH 7.3 ± 0.2” and “7.8” while Wahyuni also teaches that pH is a major operating parameter affecting Pb(II) photooxidation and that system pH was varied and optimized therefore it would have been obvious to adjust or maintain the solution pH within the drinking water compatible range of about 6 to 8 before UV treatment).
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte (US5348665) in view of Wahyuni ("Removal of Pb(II) ions in the aqueous solution by photo-Fenton method") above, and further in view of Barazesh ("Modular Advanced Oxidation Processes Enabled by Cathodic Hydrogen Peroxide Production").
Regarding claim 9, Schulte discloses a method to remove a harmful substance in water, comprising: adding an amount of at least one of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), hypochlorous acid (HOCl), or chloramine (NH2Cl) to the potable water to form a solution (Schulte abstract and claim 11 teaches degradation of harmful substances in water by adding hydrogen peroxide); exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation to form a catalyst including at
least one of a hydroxyl radical, a reactive chlorine species, or a reactive amine species to oxidize the inorganic contaminant (Schulte claim 11 “irradiating the water and hydrogen peroxide in the reaction zone with ultraviolet radiation…such that the hydrogen peroxide forms hydroxyl radicals which oxidize the harmful substance in the water”).
Schulte does not expressly teach that the harmful substance is an inorganic contaminant entrained in potable water and filtering the solution to remove the oxidized inorganic contaminant from the solution.
Wahyuni teaches that lead ions, which are inorganic contaminants, were known to be oxidized by hydroxyl radicals generated in a UV/H2O2 containing system. In particular, Wahyuni teaches decreasing the concentration of Pb(II) ions in aqueous solution by a photo-Fenton process under UV light, wherein the process uses H2O2 and UV light to generate hydroxyl radicals (Wahyuni p. 181 “H2O2 + UV → 2 ∙OH”) and further teaches that Pb2+ is oxidized by hydroxyl radicals to form PbO2 (Wahyuni abstract and p. 180). Wahyuni further teaches that, after the photo-Fenton reaction, a light brown turbid solution was formed and, by filtration of the turbid solution through Whatman 42 paper filter, a clear solution was obtained.
Barazesh teaches that point-of-use and point-of-entry drinking water treatment systems are useful for providing potable water and that such systems must address toxic trace elements including lead (Barazesh p. 195). Barazesh further teaches a modular treatment system using H2O2 and UV photolysis for distributed drinking-water treatment, and reports that dissolved arsenic, lead and copper in contaminated groundwater were converted into colloid-associated forms removable by filtration when water passed through the treatment system. Thus Barazesh provides express motivation to apply UV/H2O2-based treatment to drinking water or potable water contexts containing toxic trace elements such as lead.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schulte’s UV/H2O2 water-treatment method so that the harmful substance being treated is an inorganic lead contaminant in potable or drinking water, as taught or suggested by Wahyuni and Barazesh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Schulte teaches that UV irradiation of H2O2 forms hydroxyl radicals that oxidize harmful substances in water, Wahyuni teaches that hydroxyl radicals generated in a UV/H2O2-containing system oxidize Pb(II) to insoluble PbO2 and that the resulting turbid solution may be filtered to obtain a clear solution, and Barazesh teaches the desirability of treating drinking-water sources to remove toxic trace elements including lead by converting them into filterable forms. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Schulte expressly teaches that UV/H2O2 generates hydroxyl radicals for oxidation in water, and Wahyuni confirms that such hydroxyl radicals oxidize Pb(II), an inorganic contaminant, to insoluble PbO2, and both Wahyuni and Barazesh teach removal of the resulting solid/colloid-associated contaminant material by filtration.
Regarding claim 10, Schulte in view of Wahyuni and further in view of Barazesh discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the inorganic contaminant is a lead-based substance (Wahyuni Title and p. 180 “Pb(II) ions”), exposing the solution includes exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation to oxidize the lead-based substance (Schulte abstract and claim 11 “ultraviolet radiation” under suggestion by Wahyuni that the harmful substance is a lead-based substance), and filtering the solution includes mechanically filtering the solution to remove the oxidized lead-based substance from the solution (Wahyuni p. 181 “By filtration of the turbid solution through Whatman 42 paper filter”).
Regarding claim 11, Schulte in view of Wahyuni and further in view of Barazesh discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the inorganic contaminant is a lead-based substance (Wahyuni Title and p. 180 “Pb(II) ions”), adding an amount includes adding an amount of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to the potable water to form a solution (Schulte abstract and claim 11 teaches degradation of harmful substances in water by adding hydrogen peroxide); and exposing the solution includes exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation to form a hydroxyl radical to oxidize the lead-based substance (Schulte abstract and claim 11 “ultraviolet radiation” under suggestion by Wahyuni that the harmful substance is a lead-based substance).
Regarding claim 12, Schulte in view of Wahyuni and further in view of Barazesh discloses the method of claim 11, wherein adding an amount of hydrogen peroxide includes adding an amount of hydrogen peroxide sufficient to form a solution wherein the molar ratio of lead-based substance to hydrogen peroxide is about 1: 10 (Schulte teaches that the amount of H2O2 amount depends on the harmful substance content and the desired degradation of the harmful substances and that those skilled in the art can determine the optimum amount of H2O2 by an orienting test; Wahyuni teaches that H2O2 amount is a critical variable in Pb(II) photooxidation that must be studied and optimized, that increasing H2O2 concentration increases hydroxyl radical production and enhances Pb(II) oxidation up to an optimum, and that excess H2O2 acts as a scavenger of hydroxyl radicals and reduces Pb(II) photooxidation and further teaches varying Pb2+ concentration and evaluating oxidation performance; therefore, the lead-based substance molar ratio is an expression of two known result-effective variables and determining an optimal ratio, including about 1:10, would have been a matter of routine optimization through ordinary experimentation).
Regarding claim 13, Schulte in view of Wahyuni and further in view of Barazesh discloses the method of claim 9, wherein exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation includes exposing the solution to UV radiation with a wavelength in a range of about 10 nanometers to about 400 nanometers (Schulte col. 1 discloses various wavelengths within this range).
Regarding claim 14, Schulte in view of Wahyuni and further in view of Barazesh discloses the method of claim 13, wherein exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation includes exposing the solution to UV radiation with a wavelength of about 254 nanometers (Schulte col. 1 discloses 254 nm).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte (US5348665) in view of Wahyuni ("Removal of Pb(II) ions in the aqueous solution by photo-Fenton method") above, and further in view of Barazesh ("Modular Advanced Oxidation Processes Enabled by Cathodic Hydrogen Peroxide Production").
Regarding claim 15, Schulte discloses a method to oxidize/degrade harmful substances in water, comprising: adding an amount of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (Schulte abstract and claim 11 teaches degradation of harmful substances in water by adding hydrogen peroxide); exposing the solution to a source of UV radiation with a wavelength of about 254 nanometers (Schulte col. 1 teaches “Typically, mercury low-pressure radiators are used as a radiation source for monochromatic radiation having wavelengths of, e.g., 185, 254 and 265 nm”) to form a hydroxyl radical catalyst to oxidize the lead-based contaminant (Schulte claim 11 “irradiating the water and hydrogen peroxide in the reaction zone with ultraviolet radiation…such that the hydrogen peroxide forms hydroxyl radicals which oxidize the harmful substance in the water”).
Schulte does not expressly teach that the harmful substance is a lead-based contaminant entrained in potable water, does not expressly teach a solution with a molar ratio of about 1:10 lead-based contaminant to hydrogen peroxide and mechanically filtering the solution to remove the oxidized lead-based contaminant from the solution.
Wahyuni teaches that lead ions, which are inorganic contaminants, were known to be oxidized by hydroxyl radicals generated in a UV/H2O2 containing system. In particular, Wahyuni teaches decreasing the concentration of Pb(II) ions in aqueous solution by a photo-Fenton process under UV light, wherein the process uses H2O2 and UV light to generate hydroxyl radicals (Wahyuni p. 181 “H2O2 + UV → 2 ∙OH”) and further teaches that Pb2+ is oxidized by hydroxyl radicals to form PbO2 (Wahyuni abstract and p. 180). Wahyuni further teaches that, after the photo-Fenton reaction, a light brown turbid solution was formed and, by filtration of the turbid solution through Whatman 42 paper filter, a clear solution was obtained.
Barazesh teaches that point-of-use and point-of-entry drinking water treatment systems are useful for providing potable water and that such systems must address toxic trace elements including lead (Barazesh p. 195). Barazesh further teaches a modular treatment system using H2O2 and UV photolysis for distributed drinking-water treatment, and reports that dissolved arsenic, lead and copper in contaminated groundwater were converted into colloid-associated forms removable by filtration when water passed through the treatment system. Thus Barazesh provides express motivation to apply UV/H2O2-based treatment to drinking water or potable water contexts containing toxic trace elements such as lead, and further teaches converting dissolved lead-containing contaminants into filterable forms for removal from the treated water.
With respect to the claimed molar ratio of about 1:10 lead-based contaminant to hydrogen peroxide, Schulte teaches that the water to be treated contains hydrogen peroxide in an effective amount to degrade the harmful substances, and that the H2O2 amount depends on the harmful substance content and the desired degradation of the harmful substances. Schulte further teaches that those skilled in the art can determine the optimum amount of H2O2 by an orienting test. Wahyuni likewise teaches that H2O2 concentration is a critical variable in Pb(II) photooxidation that must be studied and optimized, that increasing H2O2 concentration increases hydroxyl radical production and enhances Pb(II) oxidation up to an optimum, and that excess H2O2 acts as a scavenger of hydroxyl radicals and reduces Pb(II) photooxidation. Wahyuni also teaches varying the initial Pb2+ concentration and evaluating the effect on Pb2+ photooxidation. Accordingly, the lead based contaminant H2O2 molar ratio is merely an expression of the relationship between two known result-effective variables-lead contaminant concentration and hydrogen peroxide concentration-and determining an operable or optimal ratio, including about 1:10, would have been a matter of routine optimization through ordinary experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schulte’s UV/H2O2 water-treatment method so that the harmful substance being treated is a lead-based contaminant in potable or drinking water, to expose the solution to UV radiation at about 254 nm to form hydroxyl radicals to oxidize the lead-based contaminant, to mechanically filter the solution to remove the oxidized lead-based contaminant, and to select an amount of H2O2 providing a molar ratio of about 1:10 lead-based contaminant to hydrogen peroxide, as taught or suggested by Schulte, Wahyuni and Barazesh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Schulte teaches that UV irradiation of H2O2 forms hydroxyl radicals that oxidize harmful substances in water, Wahyuni teaches that hydroxyl radicals generated in a UV/H2O2-containing system oxidize Pb(II) to insoluble PbO2 and that the resulting turbid solution may be filtered to obtain a clear solution, and Barazesh teaches the desirability of treating drinking-water sources to remove toxic trace elements including lead by converting them into filterable forms. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Schulte expressly teaches UV/H2O2 hydroxyl-radical oxidation in water, Schulte expressly identifies 254 nm as a suitable IV wavelength, Wahyuni confirms that such hydroxyl radicals oxidize Pb(II) to insoluble PbO2, and both Wahyuni and Barazesh teach removal of the resulting solid/colloid-associated contaminant material by filtration. The precise H2O2 amount and corresponding lead-based contaminant molar ratio would have been routinely optimized because the prior art recognizes does and contaminant concentration as result-effective variables controlling hydroxyl radical generation and lead removal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights