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 1-10, and 16-25 are pending.
Priority
Foreign priority is claimed in the Instant Application; EFD is 12/04/2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, 7, 16-21, and 23-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claims 3, 6, 7, 16-21, and 23-25 recite “is ranged from”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “ranges from” or “ranged from.”
(ii) (i) Claim 25 recites “ranged from”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “ranging from.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Gao et al., (Chitosan Modified Zeolite Molecular Sieve Particles as a Filter for Ammonium Nitrogen Removal from Water, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2383, pp. 1-15, hereinafter as “Gao”) in view of Moghaddam et al., (Stability improvement of algal-alginate beads by zeolite molecular sieves 13X, International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2019, 132, pp. 592-599, hereinafter as “Moghaddam”) and Bae et al., (US 10,081,804 B2, hereinafter as “Bae”).
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches preparation of a chitosan-modified porous NaA type zeolite adsorbent for aqueous ammonium-nitrogen removal (Abstract; p. 3, 2.1. Materials, lines 1-7). Gao discloses a method for preparing modified-zeolite algae beads, comprising:
NaA-type zeolite molecular-sieve particles having a Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface area of 7.770 m2/g, pore volume of 0.113 cm3/g, and average pore diameter of 4.403 nm (p. 3, 2.1. Materials, lines 1-7) (obtaining porous zeolite) (p. 3, 2.1. Materials, lines 1-7);
dissolving 7 g chitosan in 100 ml of 4 vol. % aqueous acetic acid solution, thereafter, contacting the washed NaA zeolite with the chitosan solution to prepare CTS-ZMS, i.e., chitosan loaded zeolite molecular sieve particles (p. 3, 2.2. Preparation of Sorbent Media, lines 1-9); the claim only specifies “glacial acetic acid” without noting the dilution, but the actual mixture contains water, the resulting acetic acid concentration is lower than the stated glacial purity (i.e., the product is not the same as the original glacial form — it is a diluted acetic acid solution), which was not specified in claim 1, thus, diluted concentration of the acetic acid taught by Gao meets the glacial acetic acid and water mixture of the claim limitation (mixing the porous zeolite with a mixed solution comprising chitosan, glacial acetic acid, water to prepare chitosan-modified porous zeolite).
But Gao does not teach mixing the chitosan-modified porous zeolite with (I) an embedding agent, Chlorella, and (II) a cross-linking agent to prepare the modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads.
Regarding (I), Moghaddam teaches preparation of immobilized zeolite-algal-alginate-beads (ZABs) by incorporating zeolite molecular sieve 13X into Chlorella vulgaris-alginate beads (Abstract; pp. 593, Preparation of zeolite molecular sieves, first paragraph, lines 1-9; p. 93, 2.3 Preparation of immobilized microalgae beads, ) (an embedding agent and zeolite-containing immobilized algae, right column, first paragraph lines 1-20).
Regarding (II), Bae teaches forming immobilized biological beads by dropping a biological PVA-alginate mixture into saturated boric-acid solution containing CaCl2 (col. 5, lines 44-55) (a cross-linking agent to prepare the modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads)
Gao, Moghaddam and Bae are analogous arts because each concern zeolitic or immobilized biological materials for aqueous/wastewater treatment, and Moghaddam specifically concerns incorporation of zeolite into immobilized Chlorella-alginate beads.
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 Gao’s chitosan-modified porous zeolite into Moghaddam’s immobilized Chlorella alginate beads because the immobilization provides a stable zeolite-containing immobilized-Chlorella treatment material (Moghaddam: Abstract; p. 598, Conclusion section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-6); it would have been further obvious to prepare the modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads with a cross-linking agent with Gao/Moghaddams modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads to increase bead strength, predictably providing stable modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads (Bae: col. 7, lines 29-32).
In regard to claim 4, Gao, in view of Moghaddam and Bae, teaches a method for preparing modified-zeolite algae beads. Bae further teaches embedding agent comprises polyvinyl alcohol and sodium alginate as mixed solutions (col. 7, lines 3-5).
In regard to claim 5, Gao, in view of Moghaddam and Bae, teaches a method for preparing modified-zeolite algae beads. Bae further teaches foaming-beading solution dropped into saturated boric acid containing calcium chloride, as the cross-linked agent (col. 7, lines 19-21).
In regard to claim 8, Gao teaches NaA-type zeolite molecular sieve having defined pore volume and average pore diameter (p. 3, 2.1. Materials, lines 1-7) (the porous zeolite comprises Na-type porous zeolite).
Claims 2, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Gao in view of Moghaddam and Bae, and further in view of Li et al., (Treatment of fluorinated wastewater with chitosan modified activated sludge lysis ash, RSC Adv., 2022, 12, pp. 34006–34019, hereinafter as “Li”).
Regarding claim 2, Gao, in view of Moghaddam and Bae, teaches preparing chitosan-modified porous zeolite but does not disclose (1) a deacetylation degree of the chitosan is greater than or equal to 95%.
However, Li teaches chitosan having a degree of acetylation ≥ 95% and a viscosity of 100-200 mPa∙s (p. 34007, 2.1. Materials and reagents, second paragraph, lines 1-3). The disclosed degree of acetylation ≥ 95% lies within the same claimed degree of acetylation of ≥ 95%.
Gao, Moghaddam, Bae and Li are analogous arts because all concern zeolitic materials useful in aqueous/wastewater treatment materials, and Gao and Li references specifically prepare particulate adsorbent by applying chitosan from aqueous acetic acid solution.
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 the chitosan grade taught by Li in the combined Gao- Moghaddam-Bae aqueous acidic chitosan process because chitosan having those properties is suitable for dissolution in aqueous acetic acid and subsequent modification of a particulate adsorbent for wastewater treatment, thus, forming of a chitosan-coated particulate adsorbent containing composite suitable for aqueous contaminant removal from wastewater (Li: Abstract; p. 34017, 4. Conclusions, p. 1-25).
In regard to claim 16, Li teaches chitosan having a viscosity of 100-200 mPa·s used in preparation of a chitosan-modified particulate wastewater-treatment material (p. 34007, Materials and Methods, 2.1 Materials and reagents, right column, second paragraph, lines line 3). The viscosity of the chitosan taught by Li ranging from 100 mPa·s to 200 mPa·s. encompasses the claimed viscosity of the chitosan ranging 100 mPa·s to 200 mPa·s.
In regard to claim 17, Li teaches dissolving chitosan using 2% acetic acid (p. 34007, Materials and Methods, 2.1 Materials and reagents, right column, first paragraph, lines 7-8). Since the claimed mass fraction of glacial acetic acid in the mixed solution ranges from 2% to 6% overlaps the 2% acetic acid mass fraction in the mixed solution taught by Li, the range recited in claim 17 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Gao in view of Moghaddam, and Bae, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Hidayat et al., (A Carbonized Zeolite/Chitosan Composite as an Adsorbent for Copper (II) and Chromium (VI) Removal from Water, materials, 2023, 16, pp. 1-13, hereinafter as “Hidayat”).
Regarding claim 3, Gao in view of Moghaddam, and Bae does not teach a mass fraction of chitosan in the mixed solution ranges from 0.4% to 1.5%.
However, Hidayat teaches preparing zeolite/chitosan aqueous-treatment material by mixing 1 g chitosan with 100 ml aqueous acetic acid (approximately 1% chitosan preparation concentration) before mixing the dissolved chitosan with zeolite (p. 2, 2. Materials and Methods, 2.2. Synthesis of C-ZLCH, first paragraph, line 1). The disclosed mass fraction of chitosan in the mixed solution ranging from 0.4% to 1.5% lies within the claimed range from 2% to 6%. Since the claimed mass fraction of chitosan in the mixed solution ranging from 0.4% to 1.5% overlaps the disclosed 1% mass fraction of chitosan in the mixed solution taught by Hidayat, the range recited in claim 3 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Gao, Moghaddam, Bae and Hidayat are analogous arts because each concern zeolitic or immobilized biological materials for aqueous/wastewater treatment, and Hidayat is reasonably pertinent to selecting the chitosan concentration in preparing the zeolite immobilized Chlorella-alginate beads.
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 approximately 1% chitosan into Gao/Moghaddam/Bae modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads because that concentration as workable for preparing a zeolite/chitosan adsorbent composite, and selection of that known concentration would predictably provide a processable chitosan solution for zeolite modification to effectively eliminate pollutants(Hidayat: p. 2 second paragraph, lines 3-5).
In regard to claim 18, Hidayat teaches preparing zeolite/chitosan aqueous-treatment material by mixing 1 g chitosan with 100 ml aqueous acetic acid (approximately 1% chitosan preparation concentration) before mixing the dissolved chitosan with zeolite; this chitosan solution (25 ml) was mixed with 0.5 g of zeolite for two hours at 30oC, resulting to a mass to volume ratio equivalent to 2 g: 100 mL. (p. 2, 2. Materials and Methods, 2.2. Synthesis of C-ZLCH, first paragraph, line 2-3). Since the claimed mass to volume ratio of porous zeolite to the mixed solution is ranged from (2 to 6) g: 100 mL overlaps the disclosed a mass to volume ratio equivalent to 2 g: 100 mL to the mixed solution taught by Hidayat, the range recited in claim 18 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Gao in view of Moghaddam and Bae, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al., (Removal of Cs and Sr ions by adsorbent in which zeolite is immobilized with PVA Removal of Cs and Sr Ions by Absorbent Immobilized Zeolite with PVA, J. Korean Soc. Environ. Eng., 2015, 37(8), pp. 450-457, 2015 (English translated document), hereinafter as “Lee”).
In regard to claim 6, Gao, in view of Moghaddam and Bae, teaches the method for preparing modified-zeolite immobilized algae. Bae teaches PVA sodium alginate amounts of 10-20 g PVA and 1-5 g sodium alginate per 100 g water, encompassing a 2:1 PVA:alginate proportion, equivalent to the claimed 4:2 endpoint. Since the claimed mass ratio of polyvinyl alcohol to sodium alginate ranging from (4 to 8):(2 to 4) overlaps the mass ratio of polyvinyl alcohol to sodium alginate of 4:2 taught by Bae, the range recited in claim 6 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
But Gao, in view of Moghaddam and Bae, does not clearly disclose the recruited PVA modified zeolite proportion: a mass ratio of polyvinyl alcohol to the chitosan-modified porous zeolite is ranged from (4 to 8):(2 to 6).
However, Lee teaches PVA-zeolite beads and prepares compositions containing PVA 4g: zeolite 2 g and PVA 4 g: zeolite3 g (within the claimed PVA: zeolite relationship) (Lee: p. 452, lines 15; lines 20-21). Since the claimed mass ratio of polyvinyl alcohol to the chitosan-modified porous zeolite is ranged from (4 to 8):(2 to 6) overlaps the mass ratio of polyvinyl alcohol to the chitosan-modified porous zeolite of 4:2 and 4:3 taught by Lee, the range recited in claim 6 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Gao, Moghaddam, Bae and Lee are analogous arts because each concern zeolitic or immobilized biological materials for aqueous/wastewater treatment. Bae and Lee specifically concern PVA-containing immobilized treatment beds, and Lee investigates PVA/zeolite proportion affecting bead structure.
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 Lee’s PVA:zeolite proportion in the combined Gao- Moghaddam-Bae immobilization matrix because PVA:zeolite proportion produces porous beads having strength and durability (Lee: p. 451, left column, lines 19-20).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Gao in view of Moghaddam, and Bae, as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Liu et al., (Immobilization of Chlorella sorokiniana GXNN 01 in alginate for removal of N and P from synthetic wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 2012, 114, pp. 26-32, hereinafter as “Liu”).
Regarding claim 7, Gao, in view of Moghaddam, and Bae, teaches preparing modified-zeolite immobilized algae wherein cross-linking agent comprises a saturated boric acid solution and calcium chloride. Bae teaches saturated boric acid solution containing 1% of CaCl2 (equivalent CaCl2: saturated boric acid solution: 5 g: 500 ml) but not the claimed range.
However, Liu teaches immobilized Chlorella sorokiniana in alginate using 2% CaCl2.
Gao, Moghaddam, Bae and Liu are analogous arts because each concern immobilized biological beads for treatment of water.
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 Liu’s 2% CaCl2 in the combined Gao- Moghaddam-Bae immobilization matrix cross-linking agent to optimize the mass to volume ratio of calcium chloride to the saturated boric acid solution is ranged from 10 g: 500 mL because that concentrating of CaCl2 as a workable cross-linking condition to effectively form stable immobilized-Chlorella alginate beads, improving pollutant removal rate (Liu: Abstract; p. 31, 4. Conclusions, first paragraph, lines 1-10).
Claims 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Gao in view of Moghaddam, and Bae, as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Noshimura et al., (US 4,219,441 A, hereinafter as “Noshimura”).
Regarding claim 9, Gao in view of Moghaddam and Bae, teaches the method for preparing modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads wherein the embedding agent comprises polyvinyl alcohol and sodium alginate but does not teach a preparation method for the Na-type porous zeolite comprises: adding zeolite to a sodium bicarbonate solution, and heating at a temperature ranged from 300 °C to 450 thereby forming the Na-type porous activated zeolite.
However, Noshimura teaches submerging zeolite in an aqueous solution containing alkali-metal ions; sodium is particularly preferred; suitable sodium compounds included bicarbonate and sodium bicarbonate is specifically evaluated (col. 4, lines 21-26; col. 7, line 65 thru col. 5, line 9) (adding zeolite to a sodium bicarbonate solution). Noshimura further teaches zeolite thermal regeneration at about 300-600oC, preferably at or below approximately 400oC; an embodiment heated at 400oC for 30 min obtains a 90% regeneration rate (col. 7, lines 5-9) (and heating at a temperature ranged from 300 °C to 450 °C). Noshimura discloses Na+ exchange onto the zeolite while NH3 is desorbed, readily regenerating the zeolite to the Z-O-Na form and maintaining sufficient NH4+ exchange adsorptivity (col. 8, line 65 thru col. 9, line 3) (forming the Na-type porous activated zeolite).
Gao, Moghaddam, Bae and Noshimura are analogous arts because Gao and Noshimura both concerns Na-containing zeolites for aqueous ammonium removal, while Moghaddam and Bae concerns biological wastewater 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 select sodium bicarbonate from Noshimura’s discloses sodium compounds and conduct the disclosed thermal treatment at approximately 400oC because both selections in the same zeolite-regeneration process, explains that Na+ restores the Z-O-Na exchange form, and demonstrates that 400oC provides substantial recovery of NH4+ adsorption capacity (Noshimura: col. 8 line 65 thru col. 9, line 3)
In regard to claim 10, Noshimura teaches clinoptilite and mordenite identified as natural zeolites particularly useful for selective NH4+ removal from wastewater (col. 1, lines 33-41) (the zeolite comprises one or more of clinoptilolite, mordenite, heulandite, or chabazite).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Gao in view of Moghaddam, Bae and Noshimura, as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Petrov et al., (Stable complete methane oxidation over palladium-based zeolite catalysts, Nature Communications, 2018, 9:2545, pp. 1-8, hereinafter as “Petrov”).
Regarding claim 19, Gao, in view of Moghaddam and Bae, teaches the method for preparing Na-type porous zeolite but does not teach wherein a concentration of the sodium bicarbonate solution is ranged from 0.7 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L.
However, Petrov teaches preparation of sodium-exchange zeolite by stirring 2g Pd/H-MOR in 200 ml of 1M NaHCO3 solution for 2 hr (NaHCO3 = 1.0 mol/L) (p. 7, Methods: Materials and synthesis, second paragraph, lines 10-11). Since the claimed wherein a concentration of the sodium bicarbonate solution is ranged from 0.7 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L overlaps the concentration of the sodium bicarbonate solution of 1.0 mol/L taught by Petrov, the range recited in claim 19 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Gao, Moghaddam, Bae, Noshimura and Petrov are analogous arts because Gao, Moghaddam, and Bae, concern zeolitic aqueous-treatment materials, while Noshimura and Petrov specifically concern sodium modification/exchange of zeolithic materials; Petrov is reasonably pertinent to selecting NaHCO3 processing conditions for sodium modification of mordernite.
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 Petrov’s 1M NaHCO3 condition in the Gao/Moghaddam/Bae/Noshimura combination sodium-bicarbonate treatment because that NaHCO3 condition controls the acidity that establishes a workable condition for extensive sodium exchange of mordenite (Petrov: p. 2, Results and Discussion section, right column, first paragraph, lines 1-6).
In regard to claim 20, Petrov teaches 2 g Pd/H-MOR zeolite: 200 mL NaHCO3 solution (p. 7, Methods: Materials and synthesis, second paragraph, lines 10-11) corresponding to 2 g: 200 ml = 10g: 1L. Since the claimed mass to volume ratio of the zeolite to the sodium bicarbonate solution ranges from (10 to 30) g: 1 L overlaps the mass to volume ratio of the zeolite to the sodium bicarbonate solution of 10 g: 1 L taught by Petrov, the range recited in claim 20 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to claim 21, Petrov teaches treating the Pd/H-MOR zeolite in 1 M NaHCO3 for 2 hr = 120 min (p. 7, Methods: Materials and synthesis, second paragraph, lines 10-11). Since the claimed duration of heating is ranged from 120 min to 240 min overlaps the duration of heating for 120 min taught by Petrov, the range recited in claim 21 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Gao in view of Moghaddam and Bae.
Claim 22 is construed as a product-by-process claim. Because patentability of a product by process is based on the product itself rather than merely the recited process of manufacture, the claimed bead is not rendered patentability distinct merely by the process language where the prior art combination renders the same or materially indistinguishable zeolite-containing immobilized-Chlorella bead obvious. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding the limitation of "Modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads prepared by the method of claim 1”, per MPEP, it is acknowledged that claim 22 is a product-by-process claim which are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, but the structure (i.e., physical and chemical properties) implied by the steps. Patentability during the examination is therefore based on the resulting bead product and the properties imparted thereto, not merely on the recited manner of manufacture. See MPEP 2113.
The method for preparing modified-zeolite immobilized algae recited in claim 1 is taught by Gao, in view of Moghaddam and Bae, as set forth above (discussion about claim 1).
Regarding claim 22, Gao teaches preparation of a chitosan-modified porous NaA type zeolite adsorbent for aqueous ammonium-nitrogen removal (Abstract; p. 3, 2.1. Materials, lines 1-7). Gao discloses a method for preparing modified-zeolite algae beads, comprising:
NaA-type zeolite molecular-sieve particles having a Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface area of 7.770 m2/g, pore volume of 0.113 cm3/g, and average pore diameter of 4.403 nm (p. 3, 2.1. Materials, lines 1-7) (obtaining porous zeolite) (p. 3, 2.1. Materials, lines 1-7);
dissolving 7 g chitosan in 100 ml of 4 vol. % aqueous acetic-acid solution, thereafter, contacting the washed NaA zeolite with the chitosan solution to prepare CTS-ZMS, i.e., chitosan loaded zeolite molecular sieve particles (p. 3, 2.2. Preparation of Sorbent Media, lines 1-9); the claim only specifies “glacial acetic acid” without noting the dilution, but the actual mixture contains water, the resulting acetic acid concentration is lower than the stated glacial purity (i.e., the product is not the same as the original glacial form — it is a diluted acetic acid solution), which was not specified in claim 1, thus, diluted concentration of the acetic acid taught by Gao meets the glacial acetic acid and water mixture of the claim limitation (mixing the porous zeolite with a mixed solution comprising chitosan, glacial acetic acid, water to prepare chitosan-modified porous zeolite).
But Gao does not teach mixing the chitosan-modified porous zeolite with (I) an embedding agent, Chlorella, and (II) a cross-linking agent to prepare the modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads.
Regarding (I), Moghaddam teaches preparation of immobilized zeolite-algal-alginate-beads (ZABs) by incorporating zeolite molecular sieve 13X into Chlorella vulgaris-alginate beads (Abstract; pp. 593, Preparation of zeolite molecular sieves, first paragraph, lines 1-9; p. 93, 2.3 Preparation of immobilized microalgae beads, ) (an embedding agent and zeolite-containing immobilized algae, right column, first paragraph lines 1-20).
Regarding (II), Bae teaches forming immobilized biological beads by dropping a biological PVA-alginate mixture into saturated boric-acid solution containing CaCl2 (col. 5, lines 44-55) (a cross-linking agent to prepare the modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads)
Gao, Moghaddam and Bae are analogous arts because each concern zeolitic or immobilized biological materials for aqueous/wastewater treatment, and Moghaddam specifically concerns incorporation of zeolite into immobilized Chlorella-alginate beads.
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 Gao’s chitosan-modified porous zeolite into Moghaddam’s immobilized Chlorella alginate beads because the immobilization provides a stable zeolite-containing immobilized-Chlorella treatment material (Moghaddam: Abstract; p. 598, Conclusion section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-6); it would have been further obvious to prepare the modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads with a cross-linking agent with Gao/Moghaddam’s modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads to increase bead strength, predictably providing stable modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads (Bae: col. 7, lines 29-32).
In regard to claim 23, Bae reports immobilized biological beads having a diameter of 4.49 mm before gas injection (col. 9, line 33). Since the claimed diameter of the modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads range from 4.2 mm to 5.4 mm overlaps the immobilized algae beads of 4.49 mm taught by Bae, the range recited in claim 23 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to claim 24, Bae teaches density of immobilized PVA-alginate beads from 1.20 – 1.70 g/ml or g/cm3 as shown Fig. 5 (Fig. 5 shows the results illustrating the density of the beads). Since the claimed diameter of the modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads range from 4.2 mm to 5.4 mm overlaps the immobilized algae beads of 4.49 mm taught by Bae, the range recited in claim 23 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Gao in view of Moghaddam, and Bae, as applied to claim 22, further in view of Isawi (Using Zeolite/Polyvinyl alcohol/sodium alginate nanocomposite beads for removal of some heavy metals from wastewater, Arabian Journal of Chemistry, 2020, 13, pp. 5691-5716, hereinafter as, “Isawi”) and Dang et al., (Influence of C/N ratios on treatment performance and biomass production during co-culture of microalgae and activated sludge, Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 837, pp 1-13, hereinafter as “Dang”).
Regarding claim 15, Gao, in view of Moghaddam, and Bae, teaches a method modified-zeolite immobilized algae bead.
But Gao, Moghaddam, and Bae do not expressly disclose introducing the modified-zeolite immobilized algae beads (I) at a ratio ranged from 10 g/L to 20 g/L into wastewater for water treatment, (II) wherein a C/N ratio of the wastewater is ranged from 1 to 3.
Regarding (I), Isawi teaches zeolite/polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), sodium alginate composite beads used for wastewater contaminant removal and evaluates bead dosage including a 20 g/L treatment dosage (Abstract; p. 5694, 3.3.1 Batch adsorption tests; line 1-11). Since the claimed ratio/concentration range of 10 g/L to 20g/L overlaps the concentration of 20 g/L taught by Isawi, the range recited in claim 15 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding (II), Dang investigates wastewater treatment under C/N = 1:1, 5:1 and 10:1, where C/N ratio corresponds to C/N =1 (Abstract; p. 10, Conclusions section, lines 1-6). Since the claimed ratio/concentration range of 1 to 3 overlaps the concentration 1:1 taught by Dang, the range recited in claim 15 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Gao, Moghaddam, Bae, Isawi, and Dang are analogous arts because each concerns aqueous/wastewater treatment, while Dang specifically investigates C/N ratio as an operating variable affecting microalgal wastewater-treatment performance and biomass production. Dang is reasonably pertinent to selecting the claimed wastewater C/N range.
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 form the known alginate immobilization bead taught by the combined Gao in view of Moghaddam and Han with candidate carrier for dosage for water treatment taught by Isawi because such dosage results predictably enhance pollutant removal from wastewater (Isawi: Abstract; p. 5714, Conclusions section, lines 1-40); it would have been obvious to use the C/N ratio taught by Dang using the immobilized beads taught by Gao- Moghaddam combination because such ratio improve performance of nitrogen removal (Dang: p. 10, Conclusions section, lines 1-13).
Conclusion
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
