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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or
under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Foreign priority is claimed in the Instant Application; EFD is 06/20/2023
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claim 12 recites “COD” without indicating the full description of the acronym “COD”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)”
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.
Claims 1-13 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claims 1 recites “a co-carrier mixed with biochar and a silica-alumina-based material” is indefinite because it does not clearly establish whether the co-carrier is the biochar/silica-alumina mixture or an additional unidentified component. In the Specification of claimed invention (page 4, lines 3-4), it is disclosed that the “co-carrier” is described as “the silica-alumina-based material such as alumina, ceramsite, or zeolite as the co-carrier.” However, the claim limitation “comprising a co-carrier mixed with biochar and a silica-alumina-based material” is unclear because the claim construction permits two reasonable interoperations: 1) the co-carrier is a separate, unidentified component that is mixed with biochar and the silica-alumina-based material; or 2) the co-carrier itself the mixture comprising biochar and the silica-based material.
For examination purposes only, “a co-carrier mixed with biochar and a silica-alumina-based material” is provisionally interpreted as a composite carrier comprising biochar and a silica-alumina-based material. This interpretation permits prior-art examination but does not resolve the 112(b) ambiguity.
Since claims 2-9 each depends from claim 1, claims 2-9 are also indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “the metal element comprises any one or a combination of copper, iron, manganese, and cerium, with a molar concentration ratio of n(Cu):n(Fe) :n(Mn) :n(Ce) = 1: (0-0.8): (0-0.6): (0-0.4)” in lines 1-2 is indefinite. The “any one” language permits embodiment containing only Fe, Mn, or Ce and no Cu, whereas the subsequently recited ratio requires Cu to be present at a normalized value of 1. These limitations are internally inconsistent, and the scope of the claimed metal composition therefore cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. See MPEP 2173.02 and 2173.05
Claim 10 recites “Use of the composite ozone catalyst” in line 1 is indefinite because claim 10 does not positively recite how the catalyst is used. Applicant may rewrite claim 10 as a method reciting contacting wastewater with ozone in the presence of the catalyst. See MPEP 2173.05(q). Since claims 11-13 each depends from claim 10, claims 11-13 are also indefinite. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation such as “A method of using the composite ozone catalyst recited in claim 1 in wastewater treatment”
Claims 11, 12 and 13, the preambles also need to be amended as, for example, “The method according to claim 10, wherein…”.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 2 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. Claim 2 fails to add a further limitation to the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 1 requires “a co-carrier mixed with biochar and a silica-alumina-based material.” Thus, the recited material must be a silica-alumina-based material.
However, claim 2 recites that “the silica-alumina-based material comprises any one or a combination of alumina, ceramsite, or zeolite.” The alternative “alumina” permits the recited material to consist of alumina without the silica component required by the “silica-alumina-based material” of claim 1. Consequently, it is the examiner's position that the “alumina” alternative of claim 2 can encompass subject matter that does not satisfy the “silica-alumina-based material” limitation incorporated in claim. Claim 2, therefore, fails, at least for this alternative, to include all limitations upon which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 3 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Tian et al., (Heterogeneous catalytic ozonation of atrazine with Mn-loaded and Fe-loaded biochar, Water Research, 2021, 193, 116860, pp. 1-12, hereinafter as “Tian”) in view of Li et al., (Degradation of nitrobenzene by high-gravity intensified heterogeneous catalytic ozonation with Mn-Fe/ZSM-5 catalysts, Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 2021, 108642, pp. 1-7, hereinafter as “Li”) and Jeong et al., (Highly porous nitrogen-doped carbon for superior
electric double-layer capacitors, RSC Advances 2017, 7, 44735-44742, hereinafter as “Jeong”).
Regarding 1, Tian teaches a heterogeneous composite ozone catalyst, comprising biochar supporting MnOx or FeOx for ozone-mediated treatment of polluted water (Abstract; p. 2, Introduction section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-16) (composite ozone catalyst, comprising a biochar and a metal element on the co-carrier).
But Tian does not teach (I) a co-carrier mixed with biochar and a silica-alumina-based material; (II) a nitrogen element supported on the co-carrier; and (III) wherein the source of the nitrogen element comprises polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP).
Regarding (I), Li teaches Mn/Fe/ZSM-5 as a packing/catalyst for heterogeneous catalytic ozonation of nitrobenzene containing wastewater (Abstract; p. 2, Introduction section, left column, second paragraph, lines 1-6). ZSM-5 is an aluminosilicate zeolite and therefore directly supplies a silica-alumina-based carrier. Li further reports spherical Mn/Fe/ZSM-5 catalyst and substantial nitrobenzene/TOC removal (Abstract; p. 2, 2.1 Experimental materials, first paragraph, lines 1-4).
Regarding (II) and (III), Jeong teaches highly porous nitrogen-doped carbon prepared from an NaOH/PVP mixture (Abstract; p. 44736, 2.2 Preparation of nitrogen doped carbon, lines 1-9). Jeong discloses nitrogen incorporated into porous carbon phase (a nitrogen element supported on the co-carrier), wherein PVP is used as the precursor for nitrogen-doped porous carbon (p. 44736, 2.2 Preparation of nitrogen doped carbon, first paragraph, lines 1-9).
Tian, Li and Jeong are analogous arts because Tian and Li concern supported heterogeneous catalysts for oxidative water treatment, while Jeong is reasonably pertinent to introducing PVP-derived nitrogen into the porous carbon portion of the catalyst.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Li’s Mn-Fe/ZSM-5 supported metal phase with Tian’s metal loaded biochar because the Mn-Fe/ZSM-5 as a porous aluminosilicate framework with the carbon surface functionality enhances catalytic activity, thereby improve degradation efficiency of organic wastewater (Li: Abstract)); it would have been further obvious to apply Jeong’s PVP-derive nitrogen modification to the Tian’s metal loaded biochar because incorporation of nitrogen-containing surface sites into the porous carbon provide additional chemically active surface functionally available for adsorption and interfacial catalytic reactions(Jeong: p. 44735, Introduction, left column, line 17 thru right column, line 5 ).
In regard to claim 3, Tian, in view of Li and Jeong, does not disclose the mass ratio of the biochar to the silica-alumina-based material is 1:(2-10).
With respect to the mass ratio of the biochar to the silica-alumina-based material, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Tian, in view of Li and Jeong, does not expressly the mass ratio of the biochar to the silica-alumina-based material; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the mass ratio of the biochar to the silica-alumina-based material as claimed since the ratios allows the determination of the zeolite-biocahr composite and its adsorption capacity effectiveness as evidenced by Deng (page 15, Conclusion section, first paragraph, lines 1 thru paragraph 2, line 10). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Tian, in view of Li and Jeong, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Deng et al., (Removal of Phosphate from Aqueous Solution by Zeolite-Biochar Composite: Adsorption Performance and Regulation Mechanism, Applied Sciences, 2022, 12, 5334, pp. 1-19, hereinafter as “Deng”).
Regarding claim 2, Tian, in view of Li and Jeong, presented in the rejection of claim 1, teaches the underlying composite ozone catalyst and the silica-alumina-based material as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Tian and Li further disclose the metal elements, Mn and Fe (Tian: p. 2, Introduction section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-16; Li: p. 2, 2.1 Experimental materials, first paragraph, lines 1-4).
But Tian, in view of Li and Jeong, does not disclose the biochar comprising any one or a combination of straw, seed shell, bark, and saw dust.
However, Deng teaches corn-straw-derived carbon material (Abstract: p. 3, Preparation Process of Zeolite-Biochar composites, 2.2.1. Biochar, first paragraph lines 1-6). Deng further discloses using zeolite combined with corn-straw (p. 4, Preparation Process of Zeolite-Biochar composites, 2.2.3. Pyrolysis of Zeolite and Biochar, first paragraph lines 1-5).
Tian, Li, Jeong, and Deng are analogous arts because they collectively concern porous carbon/inorganic water-treatment materials, supported active phase, carbon modification, and aqueous contaminant treatment.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Deng’s straw-driven biochar in the modified Tian’s biochar-silica-alumina-based material combination because combining straw-based biochar with alumina/zeolite as a composite provides enhanced aqueous contaminant adsorption and greater adsorption stability than alumina/zeolite alone through additional ligand exchange and ion-exchange interactions, thereby improve contaminant capture as an adsorbent, and retention within the porous carrier (Deng: Conclusion section, p. 15, second paragraph line 1 thru p. 16, first paragraph, line 5).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Tian, in view of Li and Jeong, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Dong et al., (Performance of alkali and Cu‑modified ZSM‑5 during catalytic ozonation of polyvinyl alcohol in aqueous solution, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023, 30, pp. 78988-79000, hereinafter as “Dong”).
Regarding claim 4, Tian, in view of Li and Jeong, teaches the underlying composite ozone catalyst and the silica-alumina-based material as discussed in claim 1. Tian and Li further disclose the metal elements, Mn and Fe (Tian: p. 2, Introduction section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-16; Li: p. 2, 2.1 Experimental materials, first paragraph, lines 1-4).
But Tian, in view of Li and Jeong, does not disclose the metal element copper (Cu) with a molar concentration of 1.
However, Dong discloses Cu supported on ZSM-5 (Abstract; p. 78990left column, first paragraph line 1 thru second paragraph line 5). Under the claim’s Cu-only alternative, Cu alone corresponds to 1:0:0:0 which lies within the numerical limitation. Since the claimed molar concentration ratio of n(Cu):n(Fe) :n(Mn) :n(Ce) = 1: (0-0.8): (0-0.6): (0-0.4) overlaps the molar concentration ratio of 1:0:0:0 taught by Dong, the range recited in claim 4 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Tian, Li, Jeong, Deng and Dong are analogous arts because they collectively concern porous carbon/inorganic water-treatment materials, supported active phase, metal elements, carbon modification, and aqueous contaminant treatment.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Dong’s Cu metal selection in the modified Tian’s biochar-silica-alumina-based material combination because the Cu-modified ZSM-5 predictably provide Cu-containing ozone-activation sites on the porous aluminosilicate support, thereby increasing high catalytic performance and stability (Dong: Abstract; p. 78997. Conclusion section, left column, paragraph 1, line 1 thru right column, paragraph 3, lines 15).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Tian, in view of Li, Jeong, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Remon et al., (US 8,231,375 B2, hereinafter as “Remon”), and Schindler et al., (US 2004/0029715 A1, hereinafter as “Schindler”).
Regarding claim 5, Tian, in view of Li and Jeong, teaches the claimed catalyst materials: combining Tian’s biochar (Abstract) and Li’s ZSM-5 (Abstract) to form the composite carrier (mixing the biochar and the silica-alumina-based material). Li discloses Mn-Fe/ZSM-5 catalyst was prepared by impregnation method which was spherical with a diameter of about 3 mm (p. 2, Experimental materials, first paragraph, lines 1-5) (and then placing the same in a metal precursor solution for impregnation).
But combination of Tian, in view of Li, and Jeong, does not disclose: (I) adding a polyvinyl pyrrolidone solution to the impregnated material and wet granulating; and (II) to form a spherical material, and calcining the spherical material to obtain the composite ozone catalyst.
Regarding (I), Remon teaches adding a PVP-containing granulating liquid to a particulate material (col. 19, lines 52-62) and further discloses using wet granulating powder with a granulating liquid to obtain granules, including catalyst granules (col. 20, lines 1-8).
Regarding (II), Schindler teaches adding PVP to oxide catalyst precursors, calcining after applying active components (¶¶ [0041-0048]), and forming shaped catalysts materials including spherical catalyst materials (¶ [0058]).
Tian, Li, Jeong, Remon and Schindler are analogous arts because collectively address supported catalyst composition, PVP incorporation, wet granulation, catalyst-particle shaping, metal precursor impregnation and calcination.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply PVP-assisted wet-granulation process taught by Remon to the impregnated Tian-Li-Jeong catalyst powder because wet granulation predictably converts fine particulate material into cohesive, robust, free-flowing granules, thereby reduce dust and powder loss, increase particle strength and easier catalyst handling (Remon: col. 6, lines 8-15; col. 10, line 39 thru col. 11 line 54); it would have been further obvious to form granules as spheres as taught by Schindler and apply to the impregnated Tian-Li-Jeong catalyst powder because spherical catalyst were known to provide a mechanically handleable and uniformly packable catalyst geometry thereby provide uniformity in the reactor packing, predictable hydraulic flow, and improved gas-liquid contact (Schindler: ¶ [0058]); it would have been further obvious to calcine the shaped material as taught by Schindler and apply to the impregnated Tian-Li-Jeong catalyst powder because the calcination step helps stabilize the supported metal phase, the development of porosity, removal of volatile binder components and incorporation of PVP-derived nitrogen (Schindler: ¶¶ [0040-0041]).
In regard to claim 6, Tian, in view of Li, Jeong, Remon and Schindler, does not disclose the polyvinyl pyrrolidone solution has a concentration of 0.5-3 wt%.
With respect to the polyvinyl pyrrolidone solution concentration, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Remon does not expressly disclose the claimed the polyvinyl pyrrolidone solution concentration; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust polyvinyl pyrrolidone solution concentration as claimed since it controls binder delivery, viscosity, power wetting, agglomeration, granule cohesion, pore blockage and drying load stimulation to produce mechanically coherent granules in order to retain catalyst porosity and processability (Remon: col. 6, lines 8-15; col. 10, line 39 thru col. 11 line 54). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Tian, in view of Li, Jeong, Remon and Schindler, as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Dong.
Regarding claim 7, Tian, in view of Li, Jeong, Remon and Schindler, disclose a preparation method for the composite ozone catalyst but does not disclose the metal precursor solution is an aqueous solution of a metal salt, and the metal salt is any one or a combination of at least two of metal citrate, metal acetate, metal sulfate, and metal nitrate.
However, Dong discloses an aqueous copper nitrate, manganese nitrate, iron nitrate and cerium nitrate solutions used for impregnation of ZSM-5 (p. 78989, Materials, first paragraph, lines 1 thru p. 78990, left column, second paragraph line 5).
Tian, Li, Jeong, Deng, Remon, Schindler and Dong are analogous arts because they collectively concern porous carbon/inorganic water-treatment materials, supported active phase, metal elements, PVP incorporation, wet granulation, catalyst-particle shaping, metal precursor impregnation and calcination, carbon modification, and aqueous contaminant treatment.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Dong’s metal salt selection in aqueous solution in the modified Tian’s biochar-silica-alumina-based material combination because the metal salt selection in aqueous solution predictably provide metal-containing ozone-activation sites on the porous aluminosilicate support, thereby increasing high catalytic performance and stability (Dong: Abstract; p. 78997. Conclusion section, left column, paragraph 1, line 1 thru right column, paragraph 3, lines 15).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Tian, in view of Li, Jeong, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ma et al., (Pilot-scale study on catalytic ozonation of bio-treated dyeing and finishing wastewater using recycled waste iron shavings as a catalyst, Scientific Reports, 2018, 8, 7555, pp. 1-11, hereinafter as “Ma”).
Regarding claim 8, Tian, in view of Li and Jeong, presented in the rejection of claim 1, teaches the claimed composite ozone catalyst but does not teach the ozone catalytic oxidation reactor for wastewater.
However, Ma teaches a pilot scale heterogeneous catalytic-ozonation reactor for treating biologically treated dyeing and finishing wastewater, wherein the reactor contains a solid heterogeneous catalyst (Abstract; p. 2, Experimental set-up and procedures, first paragraph, line 1 thru p. 3, paragraph 1, line 4).
Tian, Li, Jeong and Ma are analogous arts because Tian and Li teach supported heterogenous ozone catalysts, Jeong is reasonably pertinent to modifying the porous carbon component, and Ma teaches use of a solid-catalyst in a wastewater catalytic-ozonation reactor.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the modified Tian catalyst in Ma’s reactor because the reactor is designed to contact ozone, wastewater, and a recoverable solid catalyst predictably permitting the combined catalyst to perform its known ozone-activation function, increase COD removal and suitability for batch or continuous treatment (Ma: p. 2, Experimental set-up and procedures, first paragraph, line 1 thru p. 3, paragraph 1, line 4; p. 9, line, first paragraph line 1 thru third paragraph line 7).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Tian, in view of Li, Jeong, Ma, as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Guo et al., (Catalytic ozonation of high-salinity wastewater using salt-resistant catalyst Fe-Bi@γ-Al2O3, Journal of Water Process Engineering, 49, 2022, 103160, pp. 1-9, hereinafter as “Guo”).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Tian combination as discussed in claim 1 above, teaches the claimed composite ozone catalyst but does not teach the filling rate of the composite ozone catalyst in the reactor is 3%-15% of the total reactor volume.
However, Guo teaches a catalyst filling rate of 10%, which is inside the recited range of 3%-15%, in a heterogeneous catalytic-ozonation system for high-salinity wastewater (Abstract; p. 9, Conclusion section, left column, paragraph 1, lines 1-27).
Tian, Li, Jeong, Ma and Guo are analogous arts because collectively address supported heterogeneous wastewater-ozonation catalysts, catalyst-filled reactors, and catalyst filling rate.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Guo’s 10% filling rate in the modified Tian’s heterogeneous ozonation reactor because the filling rate taught by Guo demonstrates effective wastewater catalytic ozonation using an alumina-supported heterogeneous catalyst at a filling rate within the claimed 3-15% range, providing sufficient catalyst inventory and accessible catalytic surface for ozone activation while preserving volume for wastewater flow and gas-liquid contact, permitting effective heterogeneous catalytic ozonation treatment and COD removal (Guo: Abstract; p. 8, 4. Conclusion section, lines 1-27)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Tian, in view of Li and Jeong, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ma.
The preparation of the composite ozone catalyst recited in claim 1 is taught by Tian, in view of Li, and Jeong, as set forth above (discussion about claim 1).
However, Ma teaches a pilot scale heterogeneous catalytic-ozonation reactor for treating biologically treated dyeing and finishing wastewater, wherein the reactor contains a solid heterogeneous catalyst (Abstract; p. 2, Experimental set-up and procedures, first paragraph, line 1 thru p. 3, paragraph 1, line 4).
Tian, Li, Jeong and Ma are analogous arts because Tian and Li teach supported heterogenous ozone catalysts, Jeong is reasonably pertinent to modifying the porous carbon component, and Ma teaches use of a solid-catalyst in a wastewater catalytic-ozonation reactor.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the modified Tian catalyst in Ma’s reactor because the reactor is designed to contact ozone, wastewater, and a recoverable solid catalyst predictably permitting the combined catalyst to perform its known ozone-activation function, increase COD removal and suitability for batch or continuous treatment (Ma: p. 2, Experimental set-up and procedures, first paragraph, line 1 thru p. 3, paragraph 1, line 4; p. 9, line, first paragraph line 1 thru third paragraph line 7) .
In regards to claim 11, Ma discloses a wastewater supplied from a storage tank through an influent pump to the catalytic-ozonation tower, where the reaction tower contains a solid heterogeneous catalyst (Abstract; p. 2, Experimental set-up and procedures, first paragraph, line 1 thru p. 3, paragraph 1, line 4). It would have been obvious to introduce wastewater into the catalyst containing reactor because doing so establishes the gas-liquid-solid contact required for heterogeneous catalytic ozonation in order to promote uniform exposure of wastewater to ozone-active catalyst sites and effective COD removal (Ma: p. 2, Experimental set-up and procedures, first paragraph, line 1 thru p. 3, paragraph 1, line 4; p. 9, line, first paragraph line 1 thru third paragraph line 7).
In regards to claim 12, Ma discloses ozone supplied to the reaction tower. Ma further discloses ozone utilization expressed as COD removed per unit ozone input ranging from 1.14 -0.18 g COD/g O3 when the dosage was 14.6 g O3/min whose mathematical reciprocal is O3/[Symbol font/0x44]COD (p. 3, Results and Discussion section, Catalytic ozonation performance under batch mode, first paragraph, lines 1-6); the calculated ozone dosage based on these values ranges from 2.22-16.0:1 O3/[Symbol font/0x44]COD ratio. Since the claimed ozone dosage determined as O3/[Symbol font/0x44]COD is 1.0-2.5:1 overlaps ozone dosage determined as O3/[Symbol font/0x44]COD is 2.22-16.0:1 as taught by Guo, the range recited in claim 12 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Tian, in view of Li, Jeong, Ma, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Blonskaja et al., (Possibilities of using ozone for the treatment of wastewater from the yeast industry, Proc. Estonian Acad. Sci. Chem., 2006, 55, 1, 29–39, hereinafter as “Blonskaja”).
Regarding claim 13, Ma discloses the lower COD branch where the influent COD approximately 133 mg/L and an ozone-input/COD removal value within approximately 1.04 (Abstract).
But, Tian, in view of Li, Jeong, Ma, does not disclose higher COD branch: the 03/ACOD ratio is (1.5-2.5): 1 when the influent COD of the wastewater to be treated ≥500 mg/L.
However, Blonskaja discloses the higher COD branch, where the yeast industry wastewater having initial COD approximately 1,480-2,120 mg/L and consumed ozone/COD removed values including approximately 1.6, 2.2, 2.25 and 2.47 mg/O3 mg [Symbol font/0x44]COD (p. 33, Table 1, Results of post-ozonation of biologically treated wastewater). Since the claimed O3/[Symbol font/0x44]COD ratio when the influent COD of the wastewater to be treated is ≥ 500 mg/L, which is 1.5-2.5:1 overlaps the O3/[Symbol font/0x44]COD ratios are 1.6, 2.2, 2.25 2.47:1 as taught by Ma, the range recited in claim 13 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Tian, Li, Jeong, Ma and Blonskaja are analogous arts because they collectively address ozone-catalyst composition, industrial-wastewater treatment, reactor operation, COD removal, ozone utilization, and selection of ozone dosage relative to COD removal at different organic loadings.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Blonskaja high COD ozone/COD conditions in modified Tian’s wastewater treatment system because treating industrial wastewater having COD substantially above 500 mg/L provides the benefit of adjusting ozone input to the greater oxidant demand of high-strength wastewater while maintaining a defined relationship between the ozone consumed and organic load removed, thereby providing sufficient oxidation capacity without indiscriminately increase ozone dosage (Blonskaja: p. 38 Conclusion section, first paragraph, lines 1-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights