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 1-20 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. Dependent claims 2-20 are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, The if statements "if passivation occurs, performing a depassivation treatment on the reactive barrier ", “ if a gas blockage occurs, performing a gas guiding treatment on the reactive barrier”, “determining whether a microorganism content in the reactive barrier is greater than a preset microorganism value according to the change state of the operation parameters, and if so, performing a bacteriostasis treatment on the reactive barrier” are unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 4, The if statement " injecting, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is smaller than a preset permeability range, biological enzymes into the reaction barrier after construction of the reactive barrier is completed. “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 5, The if statement " determining, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is greater than a preset permeability range and the hexavalent chromium concentration is greater than a preset concentration range, that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed. “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 6, The if statement " if the redox potential in the reactive barrier exceeds a preset potential range and the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 7, The if statement " if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the product gas content, the permeability coefficient and the pH value in the reactive barrier are unchanged, decreased and increased, respectively, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 8, The if statement “if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the product gas content and the permeability coefficient in the reactive barrier are increased and decreased, respectively, it is determined that a gas blockage occurs in the active filler “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 9, The if statement “ if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the biological oxygen demand, the chemical oxygen demand and the permeability coefficient in the reactive barrier are increased, increased and decreased, respectively, it is determined that the microorganism content in the barrier is greater than the preset microorganism value “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 13, The if statement “ injecting, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is smaller than a preset permeability range, biological enzymes into the reaction barrier after construction of the reactive barrier is completed. “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 14, The if statement “ injecting, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is smaller than a preset permeability range, biological enzymes into the reaction barrier after construction of the reactive barrier is completed. “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 15, The if statement “determining, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is greater than a preset permeability range and the hexavalent chromium concentration is greater than a preset concentration range, that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 16, The if statement ”determining, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is greater than a preset permeability range and the hexavalent chromium concentration is greater than a preset concentration range, that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 17, The if statement ” if the redox potential in the reactive barrier exceeds a preset potential range and the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 18, The if statement ” if the redox potential in the reactive barrier exceeds a preset potential range and the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 19, The if statement ” if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the product gas content, the permeability coefficient and the pH value in the reactive barrier are unchanged, decreased and increased, respectively “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 20, The if statement ” if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the product gas content, the permeability coefficient and the pH value in the reactive barrier are unchanged, decreased and increased, respectively, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated “ is unclear because the method requires steps to be performed with respect to that condition and it is unclear whether those steps need to be met or performed.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitation "reaction barrier" in Line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 recites the limitation "reaction barrier" in Line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites the limitation "reaction barrier" in Line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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 1-2 , and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivavec (US-20030035691-A1) et al. herein known as Sivavec, in view of Li et al. (CN 112110571 A, Machine Translation) herein known as Li, in view of Sui et al. (CN 210915560 U, Machine Translation) herein known as Sui, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 6743363 B2) ) herein known as Kimura.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Sui, Fig.1)
Regarding Claim 1, Sivavec is directed to a permeable-reactive barrier monitoring method Dand system. Particularly, the invention relates to an in-well sensor method and system to monitor and control a permeable-reactive barrier zone [0001].
Sivavec discloses a method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier, comprising the following steps: mounting monitoring assemblies in a reactive barrier and downstream of the reactive barrier, so as to monitor operation parameters of an active filler in the reactive barrier and a downstream water body of the reactive barrier in real time determining whether the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated according to a change state of the operation parameters. (Abstract; [0002], [0011], [0021]-[0024], [0035] )
However, Sivavec is silent to if passivation occurs, performing a depassivation treatment on the reactive barrier; determining whether a gas blockage occurs in the active filler in the reactive barrier according to the change state of the operation parameters, and if a gas blockage occurs, performing a gas guiding treatment on the reactive barrier; and determining whether a microorganism content in the reactive barrier is greater than a preset microorganism value according to the change state of the operation parameters, and if so, performing a bacteriostasis treatment on the reactive barrier.
Li is directed to the field of contaminated soil and groundwater remediation technology, specifically to a permeable reactive barrier and remediation method.
Li discloses determining whether the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated according to a change state of the operation parameters if passivation occurs, performing a depassivation treatment on the reactive barrier ([0024], the monitoring holes are arranged on the center line of the pre-reaction zone, the main reaction zone and the effluent buffer zone, and are used to sample and monitor whether passivation has occurred, and to add a depassivating agent to eliminate passivation and blockage when passivation occurs).
Sui is directed to the field of groundwater heavy metal remediation equipment, specifically, to a permeable reactive barrier for remediation of heavy metal Cr_NER2 in groundwater of tailings ponds [0002].
Sui discloses determining whether a gas blockage occurs in the active filler in the reactive barrier according to the change state of the operation parameters, and if a gas blockage occurs, performing a gas guiding treatment on the reactive barrier (Fig.1; [0008], (A permeable reactive wall for the remediation of heavy metal Cr_NER11 in groundwater of tailings ponds includes four identical reactive wall frames. Each reactive wall frame is welded with an exhaust pipe); [[0020], (Each reactive wall frame 1 is welded with an exhaust pipe 2, and the four reactive wall frames 1 are respectively filled with a pebble layer 3, a bentonite-iron powder composite layer 4, a zeolite layer 5, and an activated carbon layer 6); ([0025], (The O<sub>2</sub> produced by the reaction is discharged through the exhaust pipe 2. After that, the groundwater flows into the zeolite layer 5. The mordenite adsorbs Cr<sup>6+</sup> in the groundwater and can alleviate the problem of operation blockage. Then, the groundwater enters the activated carbon layer 6, where the activated carbon layer 6 further adsorbs Cr<sup>6+</sup> in the groundwater, finally purifying the Cr<sup>6+</sup> in the groundwater to meet the standards).
Kimura is directed to a method for pre-treatment of crude water in membrane separation, especially for that in reverse osmosis for desalination or separation, for example, in reverse osmosis for desalination of seawater, to a method of bacteriostasis or disinfection for membranes, and to an apparatus for them (Col.2, Lines 12-17).
Kimura discloses determining whether a microorganism content in the reactive barrier is greater than a preset microorganism value according to the change state of the operation parameters, and if so, performing a bacteriostasis treatment on the reactive barrier ([ Col.2, Lines 12-17], (a method of bacteriostasis or disinfection for membranes); [Example 6, Col.17, Lines 28-42], (the number of living cells in the concentrate was counted. The number of living cells in the concentrate in the two systems decreased to 1/100 or less, as compared with that in the concentrate in those systems where only seawater having a controlled pH value of from 3.5 to 4.0 was passed. The data are shown in Table 5. From Table 5, it is understood that the disinfecting effect of the seawater having a controlled pH value of from 3.5 to 4.0 is not so good, but the disinfecting effect of the seawater having a controlled pH value of 2.6 is satisfactory. In addition, it is also understood that the disinfecting effect of the seawater could be satisfactorily enhanced only when the pH value of the seawater is lowered to 2.6 once at intervals of 5 days.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sivavec ‘s method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier, as taught by Li, Sui and Kimura wherein if passivation occurs, performing a depassivation treatment on the reactive barrier; determining whether a gas blockage occurs in the active filler in the reactive barrier according to the change state of the operation parameters, and if a gas blockage occurs, performing a gas guiding treatment on the reactive barrier; and determining whether a microorganism content in the reactive barrier is greater than a preset microorganism value according to the change state of the operation parameters, and if so, performing a bacteriostasis treatment on the reactive barrier in order to eliminate passivation and blockage when passivation occurs (See Li , [0024]), and such that the produced gas by the reaction is discharged through the exhaust pipe (see Sui, [0025]), and in order to the disinfecting effect of the water could be satisfactorily (See [Example 6, Col.17, Lines 28-42]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Sivavec discloses the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein the operation parameters are one or more of a hexavalent chromium concentration, a pH value, a temperature, an underground water level and flow rate, a redox potential, a resistivity, a biological oxygen demand, a chemical oxygen demand, a product gas content, and a permeability coefficient ([0024], (The function of a down-gradient sensor location is to monitor return of the groundwater to a natural state. For example, pH, oxidation--reduction potential and specific conductance can be measured and compared to values at an up-gradient well.); [0023], (The up-gradient and down-gradient placement provides a comparison of groundwater parameters such as pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, oxidation-reduction potential, temperature)).
Regarding Claim 6, Sivavec discloses the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the redox potential (oxidation-reduction potential) in the reactive barrier exceeds a preset potential range, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated (Abstract; [0002], [0005], [0009] , [0023]-[0024], [0035], [0046]).
However, Sivavec is silent to wherein if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated; and when it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated, a filler cleaning agent is injected into the reactive barrier until the redox potential is changed to a preset range and the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range, such that the depassivation treatment is completed.
Li discloses wherein if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated; and when it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated, a filler cleaning agent (depassivating agents such as hydrogen peroxide, small-molecule organic acids, and inorganic salt polymers) is injected into the reactive barrier until the redox potential is changed to a preset range and the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range, such that the depassivation treatment is completed ([0015] ,[0031], [0048] ,[0059]).
Claim 3-5, 7-8, 10-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivavec (US-20030035691-A1) et al. herein known as Sivavec, in view of Li et al. (CN 112110571 A, Machine Translation) herein known as Li, in view of Sui et al. (CN 210915560 U, Machine Translation) herein known as Sui, in view of Kimura et al. (US 6743363 B2) ) herein known as Kimura, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Lv et al. (CN-107739083-A, Machine Translation) herein known as Lv.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Sivavec is silent to the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein the product gas content is a nitrogen content and/or a methane content and/or a hydrogen content.
Lv is directed to the field of contaminated site remediation, specifically relating to a
method for in-situ remediation of cyanide-containing groundwater permeable reactive walls [0002].
Lv discloses the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein the product gas content is a nitrogen content and/or a methane content and/or a hydrogen content [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modfied Sivavec ‘s method wherein the product gas content is a nitrogen content and/or a methane content and/or a hydrogen content as taught by Lv, in order to effectively remediate large-scale cyanide-containing groundwater pollution and reduce remediation costs and provides a method for in-situ remediation of cyanide containing groundwater using a permeable reactive barrier (See Lv, [0009]) ]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Sivavec is silent to the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier further comprising: injecting, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is smaller than a preset permeability range, biological enzymes into the reaction barrier after construction of the reactive barrier is completed.
Lv discloses injecting, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is smaller than a preset permeability range, biological enzymes into the reaction barrier after construction of the reactive barrier is completed ([0032], [0040] -[0042]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Sivavec is silent to the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein the method further comprises: determining, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is greater than a preset permeability range and the hexavalent chromium concentration is greater than a preset concentration range, that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed.
Lv discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is greater than a preset permeability range that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed ([0032], [0040] -[0042]).
Li discloses if the hexavalent chromium concentration is greater than a preset concentration range, that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed ([0015] ,[0031], [0048] ,[0059]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Sivavec discloses the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, If the pH value in the reactive barrier is increased , it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated (Abstract, [0002], [0011], [0023]- [0024], [0030], [0035])
However, Sivavec is silent to if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the product gas content, the permeability coefficient a in the reactive barrier are unchanged, decreased, respectively, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated; and when it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated, a filler cleaning agent is injected into the reactive barrier until the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range, such that the depassivation treatment is completed.
Lv discloses if the product gas content, the permeability coefficient a in the reactive barrier is unchanged, decreased, respectively, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated ([0019],[0032], [0040] -[0042]).
Li discloses to if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and when it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated, a filler cleaning agent (depassivating agents such as hydrogen peroxide, small-molecule organic acids, and inorganic salt polymers) is injected into the reactive barrier until the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range, such that the depassivation treatment is completed ([0015] ,[0031], [0048] ,[0059]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Sivavec is silent to wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the product gas content and the permeability coefficient in the reactive barrier are increased and decreased, respectively, it is determined that a gas blockage occurs in the active filler; and when it is determined that a gas blockage occurs in the active filler, extraction and gas guiding are performed on the reactive barrier until the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range and the product gas content and the permeability coefficient in the reactive barrier are decreased and restored to a preset permeability range, respectively, such that the gas guiding treatment is completed.
Sui discloses wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the hexavalent chromium (Cr6 +) concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the product gas content is increased, it is determined that a gas blockage occurs in the active filler; and when it is determined that a gas blockage occurs in the active filler, extraction and gas guiding are performed on the reactive barrier until the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range and the product gas content is decreased, such that the gas guiding treatment is completed (Abstract, Fig.1; [0008], [0020], [0025]).
Lv in view of Sui discloses wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the permeability coefficient in the reactive barrier is decreased, it is determined that a gas blockage occurs in the active filler; and when it is determined that a gas blockage occurs in the active filler, extraction and gas guiding are performed on the reactive barrier until the permeability coefficient in the reactive barrier is restored to a preset permeability range, such that the gas guiding treatment is completed (see Lv ,[0019],[ [0032], [0040] -[0042]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Sivavec discloses the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein the determining whether the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated comprises: determining, when redox potential in the reactive barrier exceeds a lower limit of a preset potential. It would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio when redox potential in the reactive barrier exceeds a lower limit of a preset potential range by 10%. (Abstract; [0002], [0005], [0009] , [0023]- [0035], [0046]; [0024], Table 1 (the following value profile can be observed oxidation--reduction potential (PRB) -300 mV to -800 mV). and a pH value changes to exceed an upper limit or a lower limit of a preset PH value range, that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated. (Abstract, [0002], [0011], [0023]- [0024], [0030], [0035])
Li discloses determining, when a hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range, that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated; and alternatively, determining, when a hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range completed ([0015] ,[0031], [0048] ,[0059]).
Sui discloses determining, when a product gas content in the reactive barrier is kept within a preset range (Abstract, Fig.1; [0008], [0020], [0025]).
Lv discloses determining when a permeability coefficient decreases relative to a standard permeability coefficient, that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated ([0032], [0040] -[0042]), It would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art to optimize the ratio to permeability coefficient decreases by 30% relative to a standard permeability coefficient.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Sivavec is silent to wherein the determining whether a gas blockage occurs in the active filler in the reactive barrier comprises: monitoring gas concentrations of hydrogen and methane in the permeable reactive barrier in real time through an embedded gas concentration monitoring probe, and meanwhile, monitoring a barrier permeability coefficient through a permeability coefficient detector; and determining, when the gas concentrations of the hydrogen and the methane dissolved in water reach a high point of a preset range and are kept over 24 h and the barrier permeability coefficient decreases by 30% relative to a standard permeability coefficient, that a gas blockage occurs in the active filler.
Sui discloses wherein the determining whether a gas blockage occurs in the active filler in the reactive barrier comprises: monitoring gas concentrations ( applicable to hydrogen and methane) in the permeable reactive barrier in real time through an embedded gas concentration monitoring probe. barrier (Fig.1; [0008], (A permeable reactive wall for the remediation of heavy metal Cr_NER11 in groundwater of tailings ponds includes four identical reactive wall frames. Each reactive wall frame is welded with an exhaust pipe); [[0020], (Each reactive wall frame 1 is welded with an exhaust pipe 2, and the four reactive wall frames 1 are respectively filled with a pebble layer 3, a bentonite-iron powder composite layer 4, a zeolite layer 5, and an activated carbon layer 6); ([0025], (The O<sub>2</sub> produced by the reaction is discharged through the exhaust pipe 2. After that, the groundwater flows into the zeolite layer 5. The mordenite adsorbs Cr<sup>6+</sup> in the groundwater and can alleviate the problem of operation blockage. Then, the groundwater enters the activated carbon layer 6, where the activated carbon layer 6 further adsorbs Cr<sup>6+</sup> in the groundwater, finally purifying the Cr<sup>6+</sup> in the groundwater to meet the standards).
Lv discloses meanwhile, monitoring a barrier permeability coefficient through a permeability coefficient detector ([0032], [0040] -[0042]).
It would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art in view of LV and Sui to determining, when the gas concentrations of the hydrogen and the methane dissolved in water reach a high point of a preset range and are kept over 24 h and the barrier permeability coefficient decreases by 30% relative to a standard permeability coefficient, that a gas blockage occurs in the active filler.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Sivavec is silent to the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier further comprising: injecting, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is smaller than a preset permeability range, biological enzymes into the reaction barrier after construction of the reactive barrier is completed.
Lv discloses injecting, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is smaller than a preset permeability range, biological enzymes into the reaction barrier after construction of the reactive barrier is completed ([0032], [0040] -[0042]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth.
Sivavec is silent to the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier further comprising: injecting, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is smaller than a preset permeability range, biological enzymes into the reaction barrier after construction of the reactive barrier is completed.
Lv discloses injecting, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is smaller than a preset permeability range, biological enzymes into the reaction barrier after construction of the reactive barrier is completed ([0032], [0040] -[0042]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However Sivavec is silent to the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein the method further comprises: determining, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is greater than a preset permeability range and the hexavalent chromium concentration is greater than a preset concentration range, that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed.
Lv discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is greater than a preset permeability range that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed ([0032], [0040] -[0042]).
Li discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining, if the hexavalent chromium concentration is greater than a preset concentration range, that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed ([0015] ,[0031], [0048] ,[0059]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Sivavec is silent to the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein the method further comprises: determining, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is greater than a preset permeability range and the hexavalent chromium concentration is greater than a preset concentration range, that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed.
Lv discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining, if the permeability coefficient of the reactive barrier is greater than a preset permeability range that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed ([0032], [0040] -[0042]).
Li discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining, if the hexavalent chromium concentration is greater than a preset concentration range, that the reactive barrier at a corresponding detection position is defective and repairing a defective part after construction of the reactive barrier is completed ([0015] ,[0031], [0048] ,[0059]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Sivavec discloses the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the redox potential in the reactive barrier exceeds a preset potential range, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated (Abstract; [0002], [0005], [0009] , [0023]-[0024], [0035], [0046]).
However, Sivavec is silent to if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated and when it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated, a filler cleaning agent is injected into the reactive barrier until the redox potential is changed to a preset range and the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range, such that the depassivation treatment is completed.
Li discloses if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated; and when it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated, a filler cleaning agent (depassivating agents such as hydrogen peroxide, small-molecule organic acids, and inorganic salt polymers) is injected into the reactive barrier until the redox potential is changed to a preset range and the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range, such that the depassivation treatment is completed ([0015] ,[0031], [0048] ,[0059]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Sivavec discloses the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the redox potential in the reactive barrier exceeds a preset potential range it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated passivated (Abstract; [0002], [0005], [0009] , [0023]-[0024], [0035], [0046]).
However, Sivavec is silent to If the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated; and when it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated, a filler cleaning agent is injected into the reactive barrier until the redox potential is changed to a preset range and the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range, such that the depassivation treatment is completed.
Li discloses If the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated; and when it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated, a filler cleaning agent (depassivating agents such as hydrogen peroxide, small-molecule organic acids, and inorganic salt polymers) is injected into the reactive barrier until the redox potential is changed to a preset range and the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range, such that the depassivation treatment is completed completed ([0015] ,[0031], [0048] ,[0059]).
Regarding Claims 19-20, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Sivavec discloses the method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the pH value in the reactive barrier is increased it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated(Abstract, [0002], [0011], [0023]- [0024], [0030], [0035]).
However Sivavec is silent to if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the product gas content and the permeability coefficient in the reactive barrier are unchanged and decreased , respectively, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated; and when it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated, a filler cleaning agent is injected into the reactive barrier until the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range, such that the depassivation treatment is completed.
If the permeability coefficient in the reactive barrier is decreased , it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated ([0019],[ [0032], [0040] -[0042]).
Sui discloses if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the product gas content in the reactive barrier is unchanged, it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated; and when it is determined that the active filler in the reactive barrier is passivated, a filler cleaning agent is injected into the reactive barrier until the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier is changed to the preset concentration range, such that the depassivation treatment is completed (Abstract, Fig.1; [0008], [0020], [0025]).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivavec (US-20030035691-A1) et al. herein known as Sivavec, in view of Li et al. (CN 112110571 A, Machine Translation) herein known as Li, in view of Sui et al. (CN 210915560 U, Machine Translation) herein known as Sui, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 6743363 B2) ) herein known as Kimura, as applied to the claims above, in view of Lv et al. (CN-107739083-A, Machine Translation) herein known as Lv and further in view of Zhu e al. (CN-104045157-A, Machine Translation ) herein known as Zhu.
Regarding Claims 9, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Sivavec is silent to wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the biological oxygen demand, the chemical oxygen demand and the permeability coefficient in the reactive barrier are increased, increased and decreased, respectively, it is determined that the microorganism content in the barrier is greater than the preset microorganism value; and when it is determined that the microorganism content in the reactive barrier is greater than the preset microorganism value, a bacteriostatic agent is injected into the reactive barrier, such that the bacteriostasis treatment is completed.
Li discloses wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range, it is determined that the microorganism content in the barrier is greater than the preset microorganism value ([0015] ,[0031], [0048] ,[0059]).
Zhu is directed to the field of water pollution control engineering technology, and in
particular relates to a permeable reactive barrier system for treating landfill leachate, which is
applied to the pollution control and treatment of landfill leachate [0002].
Zhu discloses wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the biological oxygen demand, the chemical oxygen demand in the reactive barrier is increased, it is determined that the microorganism content in the barrier is greater than the preset microorganism value ([0029], [0034]- [0035])
Lv discloses wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the permeability coefficient in the reactive barrier is decreased, it is determined that the microorganism content in the barrier is greater than the preset microorganism value ([0032], [0040] -[0042]).
Kimura discloses when it is determined that the microorganism content in the reactive barrier is greater than the preset microorganism value, a bacteriostatic agent is injected into the reactive barrier, such that the bacteriostasis treatment is completed ([ Col.2, Lines 12-17], (a method of bacteriostasis or disinfection for membranes); [Example 6, Col.17, Lines 28-42], (the number of living cells in the concentrate was counted. The number of living cells in the concentrate in the two systems decreased to 1/100 or less, as compared with that in the concentrate in those systems where only seawater having a controlled pH value of from 3.5 to 4.0 was passed. The data are shown in Table 5. From Table 5, it is understood that the disinfecting effect of the seawater having a controlled pH value of from 3.5 to 4.0 is not so good, but the disinfecting effect of the seawater having a controlled pH value of 2.6 is satisfactory. In addition, it is also understood that the disinfecting effect of the seawater could be satisfactorily enhanced only when the pH value of the seawater is lowered to 2.6 once at intervals of 5 days.))
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Sivavec ‘s method for preventing and treating pollution plume migration of a permeable reactive barrier, as taught by Lv, Li, Zhu and Kimura wherein during the operation of the reactive barrier, if the hexavalent chromium concentration downstream of the reactive barrier rises to exceed a preset concentration range and the biological oxygen demand, the chemical oxygen demand and the permeability coefficient in the reactive barrier are increased, increased and decreased, respectively, it is determined that the microorganism content in the barrier is greater than the preset microorganism value; and when it is determined that the microorganism content in the reactive barrier is greater than the preset microorganism value, a bacteriostatic agent is injected into the reactive barrier, such that the bacteriostasis treatment is completed, in order to apply pollution control and treatment for permeable reactive barrier system (See Zhu, [0002]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Sivavec teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Sui discloses wherein the determining whether a microorganism content in the reactive barrier is greater than a preset microorganism value comprises: monitoring a gas concentration (applicable to methane) in the permeable reactive barrier in real time through an embedded gas concentration monitoring probe (Fig.1; [0008], (A permeable reactive wall for the remediation of heavy metal Cr_NER11 in groundwater of tailings ponds includes four identical reactive wall frames. Each reactive wall frame is welded with an exhaust pipe); [[0020], (Each reactive wall frame 1 is welded with an exhaust pipe 2, and the four reactive wall frames 1 are respectively filled with a pebble layer 3, a bentonite-iron powder composite layer 4, a zeolite layer 5, and an activated carbon layer 6); ([0025], (The O<sub>2</sub> produced by the reaction is discharged through the exhaust pipe 2. After that, the groundwater flows into the zeolite layer 5. The mordenite adsorbs Cr<sup>6+</sup> in the groundwater and can alleviate the problem of operation blockage. Then, the groundwater enters the activated carbon layer 6, where the activated carbon layer 6 further adsorbs Cr<sup>6+</sup> in the groundwater, finally purifying the Cr<sup>6+</sup> in the groundwater to meet the standards).
Zhu discloses meanwhile, monitoring biological oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand values of a water body in the barrier through embedded biological oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand probes([0029], [0034]- [0035]).
Lv discloses meanwhile, monitoring a barrier permeability coefficient through a permeability coefficient detector ([0032], [0040] -[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Sui, Zhu, Lv and Kimura determining, when a methane concentration reaches a high point of a preset range and is kept over 24 h, one of a biological oxygen demand and a chemical oxygen demand reaches a high point of a preset range and is kept over 24 h and the barrier permeability coefficient decreases by 30% relative to a standard permeability coefficient, that the microorganism content in the reactive barrier is greater than the preset microorganism value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-6535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm.
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 L 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.
/MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights