DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Safarik et al, the article “Magnetically modified spent coffee grounds for dyes removal”.
Regarding Claim 16:
Safarik teaches the method of using magnetized coffee grounds to remove at least one contaminant from an aqueous solution comprising: obtaining the magnetized coffee grounds comprising coffee grounds bonded to iron oxide nanoparticles (precipitation of magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles on the plant material surface) (see pg. 347, right column); immersing the magnetized coffee grounds in the aqueous solution comprising the at least one contaminant (water soluble dyes) (see pg. 347, right column); and removing the at least one contaminant from the aqueous solution by causing movement of the magnetized coffee grounds in the aqueous solution using a magnetized force (magnetic separator) (see pg. 346, right column: Adsorption of dyes on magnetically modified coffee grounds).
Regarding Claim 18:
Safarik teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the magnetized force interacts with the iron oxide nanoparticles (iron oxide provides the magnetic modification) (see pg. 347, left column, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 20:
Safarik teaches the method of claim 16, wherein coffee grounds comprise spent coffee grounds (spent coffee grounds) that have undergone a coffee brewing process (see Abstract).
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 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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarik et al, the article “Magnetically modified spent coffee grounds for dyes removal” as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yen et al, the article “Removal of nano-sized polystyrene plastic from aqueous solutions using untreated coffee grounds”.
Regarding Claim 17:
Safarik teaches the method of claim 16.
Safarik does not teach that the at least one contaminant comprises an oil or a microplastic.
Yen teaches coffee grounds from the removal of plastic pollution (nanoplastic pollution) (see Abstract), further teaching that microplastic are a known source of pollution (see pg. 2, left column, 1st paragraph) that can be removed through adsorption (see pg. 6, right column, 2nd paragraph).
Safarik and Yen are analogous inventions in the art of using coffee grounds as adsorbents. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the method of Safarik to remove a contaminant comprising microplastic because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate source of pollution to treat with a known method . Further it is known that coffee grounds can be used to adsorb plastics from solution (see Yen, Abstract).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarik et al, the article “Magnetically modified spent coffee grounds for dyes removal” as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Dawes et al (US 2012/0048110).
Regarding Claim 19:
Safarik teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the at least one contaminant comprises a dye (see Abstract).
Safarik does not teach the magnetized coffee grounds are coated in ascorbic acid.
Dawes teaches coating an adsorbent in ascorbic acid (see para. 0043, 0055) to improve adsorption of contaminants (see para. 0007, 0055).
Safarik and Dawes are analogous inventions in the art of adsorbents for water treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to coat the ascorbic acid of Dawes on the magnetized coffee grounds of Safarik because the addition of an antioxidant improves the sorption performance (see Dawes para. 0007) and because it is the simple addition of a known coating to a known sorbent, obviously resulting a material able to adsorb dyes, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 1 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarik et al, the article “Magnetically modified spent coffee grounds for dyes removal” and Dawes et al (US 2012/0048110).
Regarding Claim 1:
Safarik teaches the method, comprising: obtaining coffee grounds and magnetizing the coffee grounds (see pg. 346, right column: Magnetic modification of coffee grounds).
Safarik does not teach coating the magnetized coffee grounds with ascorbic acid.
Dawes teaches coating an adsorbent in ascorbic acid (see para. 0043, 0055) to improve adsorption of contaminants (see para. 0007, 0055).
Safarik and Dawes are analogous inventions in the art of adsorbents for water treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to coat the ascorbic acid of Dawes on the magnetized coffee grounds of Safarik because the addition of an antioxidant improves the sorption performance (see Dawes para. 0007) and because it is the simple addition of a known coating to a known sorbent, obviously resulting a material able to adsorb dyes, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 9:
Safarik, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the coffee grounds comprise spent coffee grounds that have undergone a coffee brewing process (see Safarik: Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10:
Safarik teaches a composition, comprising: coffee grounds and iron oxide nanoparticles (see pg. 346, right column: Magnetic modification of coffee grounds, pg. 346, right column, first paragraph).
Safarik does not teach coffee grounds coated with ascorbic acid.
Dawes teaches an adsorbent coated in ascorbic acid (see para. 0043, 0055) to improve adsorption of contaminants (see para. 0007, 0055).
Safarik and Dawes are analogous inventions in the art of adsorbents for water treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to coat the ascorbic acid of Dawes on the magnetized coffee grounds of Safarik because the addition of an antioxidant improves the sorption performance (see Dawes para. 0007) and because it is the simple addition of a known coating to a known sorbent, obviously resulting a material able to adsorb dyes, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 11:
Safarik, as modified, teaches the composition of claim 10, wherein the coffee grounds are bonded to the iron oxide nanoparticles by hydrogen bonds. The claim is directed to a composition, as the composition in the same the properties are the same (see MPEP 2112.01 II). Hydrogen bonding between the coffee grounds and iron oxide is a property of the composition.
Regarding Claims 12-14:
Claim 12-14 contain only product by process limitations. Product by process limitations only add patentable weight to the extent that the prior art product must be the same. In the instant case the combination of Safarik and Dawes teaches magnetically modified coffee grounds coated in ascorbic acid, therefore the limitations of claims 12-14 are met (see MEPE 2113).
Regarding Claim 15:
Safarik, as modified, teaches the composition of claim 10, wherein the coffee grounds are configured to remove at least one contaminant from an aqueous solution by causing movement of the coffee grounds in the aqueous solution using a magnetized force (magnetic separator) (see Safarik, pg. 346: Adsorption of dyes on magnetically modified coffee grounds).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarik et al, the article “Magnetically modified spent coffee grounds for dyes removal” and Dawes et al (US 2012/0048110) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Awadh (US 2021/0139348).
Regarding Claim 2:
Safarik, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein magnetizing the coffee grounds comprises: immersing the coffee grounds in a solution of iron oxide nanoparticles and methanol (see Safarik pg. 346:Magnetic modification of coffee grounds, pg. 347: results and discussion); mixing the coffee grounds and the solution; and allowing the coffee grounds and the solution to sit undisturbed for a predetermined time period (any amount of time is considered a predetermined amount of time) (see Safarik pg. 346: Magnetic modification of coffee grounds)
Safarik does not teach that the alcohol in ethanol.
Awadh teaches magnetic modification comprising immersing an adsorbent in a solution of iron oxide nanoparticles and ethanol (see para. 0020, 0024).
Safarik, as modified, and Awadh are analogous inventions in the art of magnetically modified adsorbents. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the methanol of Safarik with the ethanol of Awadh because it is the simple substitution of one known alcohol for an iron oxide solution with another known alcohol for an iron oxide, obviously resulting in a solution able to magnetically modify the coffee grounds 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 3:
Safarik, as modified, teaches the method of claim 2.
Safarik does not teach the claimed relative amounts of coffee grounds to ethanol and iron oxide nano particles. However, “where 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) (MPEP 2144.05). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the relative amounts of coffee grounds, ethanol and iron oxide nanoparticles and use about 200 milligrams of coffee grounds, 6 milliliters of ethanol, and about 80 milligrams of iron oxide.
Regarding Claim 4:
Safarik, as modified, teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: straining the magnetized coffee grounds from the solution (separated with magnetic separator); washing the magnetized coffee grounds with an ethanol wash; suspending the magnetized coffee grounds in an ethanol solution (repeatedly washed); and retrieving the magnetized coffee grounds with a magnetic force, wherein the magnetic force interacts with the iron oxide nanoparticles (magnetic adsorbent was separated from the suspension using a magnetic separator) (see Safarik pg. 346, right column).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarik et al, the article “Magnetically modified spent coffee grounds for dyes removal” and Dawes et al (US 2012/0048110) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yen et al, the article “Removal of nano-sized polystyrene plastic from aqueous solutions using untreated coffee grounds”.
Regarding Claim 5:
Safarik, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
Safarik does not teach the size of the coffee grounds or drying the coffee grounds.
Yen taches grinding coffee grounds to a size between 0.15mm and 0.85 mm and drying the coffee grounds at 80 °C for at least 24 hours (see pg. 2: section 2.1), Given that the particle size of 0.15 to 085mm fully encompasses the claimed range of 300 micrometers (0.3mm) to 450 micrometers (0.45mm) a prima facie case of obviousness exists and it would have been obvious to use a particle size within the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05). Further, give that the applicant has not shown any significance with respect to the drying temperature it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a temperature of 140°C. “[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) (MPEP 2144.05).
Safarik and Yen are analogous inventions in the art of coffee ground adsorbents. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to grind the coffee grounds of Safarik to between of 300 micrometers (0.3mm) to 450 micrometers (0.45mm) and dry the coffee grounds, as disclosed by Yen because it is the simple addition of known methods to a known process, obviously resulting consistently sized coffee grounds able to function as an adsorbent, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 6-8 contain limitations that are not disclosed, and would not have been obvious in view of the prior art. Claim 6 requires “dissolving the ascorbic acid in a solution of water and ethanol; and immersing the magnetized coffee grounds in the solution” The ascorbic acid of Dawes is not dissolved in ethanol or any other alcohol before coating the adsorbent. This method for coating adsorbents with ascorbic acid is not known in this or remated prior arts, therefore one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to further modify Safarik and Dawes to dissolve the ascorbic acid in a solution of water an ethanol and immerse the magnetized coffee grounds in the solution.
Conclusion
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 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights