DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim 1 is amended.
This Action is Made Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the combination of Lee and Manganaro does not teach an air gap within the contaminant treatment vessel because Manganaro teaches that the air gap is above the contaminant treatment vessel. This argument it not persuasive because the air gap of Manganaro is within the contaminant treatment vessel (funneling zone) because it extends above the funneling zone. As the air gap extends above the vessel it is also within the vessel. The claims do not requires an inlet for the hydrogen peroxide that is part of the vessel and located above an air gap.
The applicant also argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Lee with Manganaro because they are directed to different processes. This argument is not persuasive because both Lee and Manganaro are directed to oxidation with hydrogen peroxide and because Manganaro would be considered analogous art to the instant invention because it solves the same problem of preventing backflow into the chemical feed line.
The applicant argues that the modification to Lee uses impermissible hindsight. This argument is not persuasive because the motivation for the modification is provided in Manganaro, specifically preventing reactants from overflowing into feed lines. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 101834179, English machine translation provided) in view of Manganaro et al (USPN 5,470,564).
Regarding Claim 1:
Lee teaches the method for the treatment of oxidizable contaminants in wastewater, the method comprising: supplying the wastewater (soda) to a contaminant treatment vessel (reactor 130) (see pg. 7, last paragraph); supplying hydrogen peroxide (oxidant, oxidant can be hydrogen peroxide, oxidant can added to reaction apparatus after waste gas) to the contaminant treatment vessel (see pg. 7, last paragraph, pg. 3, last paragraph, pg. 4, 2nd paragraph); and contacting the wastewater in the contaminant treatment vessel with the hydrogen peroxide (oxidation process) (see pg. 7 last paragraph), wherein contacting the wastewater with the hydrogen peroxide reduces a concentration of oxidizable contaminants based on a concentration of oxidizable contaminants in a wastewater feed stream (reduction of sulfide by 80%) (see pg. 7, 5th paragraph).
Lee does not teach the hydrogen peroxide is supplied to the contaminant treatment vessel above a maximum wastewater fill line of the contaminant treatment vessel.
Manganaro teaches a method of supplying hydrogen peroxide to a vessel, wherein the hydrogen peroxide is supplied to the contaminant treatment vessel above a maximum wastewater fill line of the contaminant treatment vessel such that an air gap exists within contaminant treatment vessel between the maximum wastewater fill line and the hydrogen peroxide injection point (with an air gap between the feed line and funneling zone) (see col. 2 lines 50-55, col. 3 lines 14-19).
Lee and Manganaro are analogous inventions in the art of adding oxidants to reaction vessels. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the air gap (supply the hydrogen peroxide above the maximum fill line) as disclosed by Manganaro to the hydrogen peroxide supply of Lee because it ensures that no reactants overflow into the feed lines (see Manganaro col. 3 lines 14-19).
Regarding Claim 2:
Lee, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the wastewater comprises a high alkaline wastewater (pH 10 to 14, alkaline wastewater) (see Lee pg. 8, 1st paragraph, pg. 1, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding Claim 3:
Lee, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the wastewater comprises a pH of greater than 7 (10 to 14) (see Lee pg. 8, 1st paragraph).
Regarding Claim 4:
Lee, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the wastewater comprises greater than 0.1 mg/l oxidizable contaminants (see Lee pg. 10. Example 2.2, Table 1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Lee, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the wastewater is contacted with the hydrogen peroxide at a temperature less than 70 degrees Celsius (room temperature) (see Lee pg. 6, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 6:
Lee, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the wastewater is contacted with the hydrogen peroxide at a temperature of greater than 20 degrees Celsius to less than 50 degrees Celsius (room temperature) (see Lee pg. 6, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 7:
Lee, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the hydrogen peroxide is supplied to the contaminant treatment vessel at least half a meter above the maximum wastewater fill line of the contaminant treatment vessel. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the height of the air gap and use an height of at least half a meter above the maximum wastewater fill line in order to find an appropriate distance that prevents back flow. “[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).
Regarding Claim 8:
Lee, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein contacting the wastewater in the contaminant treatment vessel with the hydrogen peroxide reduces the concentration of oxidizable contaminants in the wastewater (reduces by 80%) (see Lee, pg. 7, 5th paragraph).
Regarding Claim 9:
Lee, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the oxidizable contaminants comprise sulfides (see Lee, pg. 7, 5th paragraph), nitrites, phosphites, or a combination of these.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 101834179, English machine translation provided) in view of Manganaro et al (USPN 5,470,564) and Horn et al (USPN 5,854,060).
Regarding Claim 10:
Lee teaches the system for the treatment of oxidizable contaminants in wastewater, the system comprising: a contaminant treatment vessel (reactor 130 ); a hydrogen peroxide supply unit (oxidizer feed tank 120) comprising a hydrogen peroxide transfer line in fluid communication with the contaminant treatment vessel, wherein: the hydrogen peroxide transfer line comprises one or more hydrogen peroxide pumps (a pump) and a valve (see pg. 7, 8th paragraph); the hydrogen peroxide transfer line is in fluid communication with the contaminant treatment vessel at a hydrogen peroxide injection point (see pg. 7, last paragraph); a wastewater feed stream in fluid communication with the contaminant treatment vessel (soda feed tank 110); and a contaminant treatment vessel effluent stream in fluid communication with the contaminant treatment vessel, the contaminant treatment vessel effluent stream comprising less oxidizable contaminants regardless of an initial concentration of oxidizable contaminants in the wastewater feed stream.
Lee does not teach wherein the hydrogen peroxide injection point is positioned above a maximum wastewater fill level of the contaminant treatment vessel such that an air gap exists between the wastewater in the contaminant treatment vessel and the hydrogen peroxide injection point. Lee does not teach that the valve is one or more ball valves, and one or more check valves.
Manganaro teaches a hydrogen peroxide supply injection point into a vessel, wherein the hydrogen peroxide injection point is positioned above a maximum wastewater fill level of the contaminant treatment vessel such that an air gap exists between the wastewater in the contaminant treatment vessel and the hydrogen peroxide injection point (with an air gap between the feed line and funneling zone) (see col. 2 lines 50-55, col. 3 lines 14-19).
Lee and Manganaro are analogous inventions in the art of adding oxidants to reaction vessels. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention toad the air gap (supply the hydrogen peroxide above the maximum fill line) as disclosed by Manganaro to the hydrogen peroxide supply of Lee because it ensures that no reactants overflow into the feed lines (see Manganaro col. 3 lines 14-19).
Horn teaches supply lines with at least one ball valve (vented ball valve 220) (see col. 14 lines 47-48) and at least one check valve (check valve 260) (see col. 15 lines 8-11).
Lee, as modified, and Horn are analogous inventions in the art of supplying oxidants. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the unspecified valve of Lee with the ball valve and check valve of Horn because it is the simple substitution of a known valve for other known valves, obviously resulting in the ability to control flow through the supply line and limit flow through the supply line (see Horn col. 15 lines 8-11), with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 11:
Lee, as modified, teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the contaminant treatment vessel is operable to oxidize the oxidizable contaminants in the wastewater feed stream (see Lee pg. 7, 5th paragraph).
Regarding Claim 13:
Lee, as modified, teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more ball valves are vented ball valves (vented ball valve 220) (see Horn col. 14 lines 47-48).
Regarding Claim 14:
Lee, as modified, teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the hydrogen peroxide supply unit comprises materials of construction that are pickled, passivated, or both (SUS316L material) (see Lee pg. 10, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding Claim 15:
Lee, as modified, teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the oxidizable contaminants comprise sulfides, nitrite, phosphite, or a combination of these (see Lee, pg. 7, 5th paragraph).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 101834179, English machine translation provided) in view of Manganaro et al (USPN 5,470,564) and Horn et al (USPN 5,854,061) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Krieger (US 2016/0115062).
Regarding Claim 12:
Lee, as modified, teaches the system of claim 10.
The previous combination does not teach the one or more hydrogen peroxide pumps are air diaphragm pumps.
Krieger teaches an air diaphragm pump (see para. 0030).
Lee, as modified, and Krieger are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the unspecified pump of Lee with the air diaphragm pump of Krieger because it is the simple substitution of one pump with another known pump, obviously resulting in the movement of the hydrogen peroxide, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 10/05/2026
Prosecution Insights