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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are vague and indefinite because in claims 1 and 10 the water is set forth as containing “ammonia nitrogen and/or phosphorus”. Ammonia nitrogen is a parameter which refers the concentration of ammonia (NH3) to ammonium ions (NH4+) present in water, see below:
PNG
media_image1.png
143
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is unclear if “ammonia nitrogen” in the claim requires the presence of both ammonia and ammonium ions or not. Therefore, the scope of the claims is unclear.
The term “weakly alkaline range”” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “weakly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims not specifically mentioned are indefinite since they depend from one of the above claims.
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) 1-3, 6-8, 10, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WO2005/208680A1 (cited by applicant, hereafter WO ‘680).
With regards to claims 10 and 1, WO ‘680 discloses an apparatus for water clarification and greening, which simultaneously achieves water clarification and greening by planting a plant in a channel (6 in Fig. 6); wherein water flowing into the channel contains ammonia (see the abstract) nitrogen and/or phosphorus; the channel comprises a planting portion (5) where the plant (7) is planted in a filtration bed (5) filled with a granular material (elements 4) containing incineration ash (note the recitation of coal ash on the first page of the translation); and the granular material containing incineration ash adsorbs the ammonia nitrogen and/or phosphorus in the water flowing into the channel, and the plant grows by absorbing the ammonia nitrogen (see the ninth full paragraph on the second page of the translation) and/or phosphorus adsorbed onto the granular material containing incineration ash, so as to achieve water clarification and greening (desired result).
With regards to claims 11 and 12, WO ‘680 discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the channel comprises three sections, which are an upstream section, a middle section, and a downstream section, from the upstream side; (because the portion can be randomly assigned the planting portion 5 can be divided into three sections representing the cited sections) and the middle section comprises the planting portion. Further, the sections would be capable of performing as set forth in claim 12.
With regards to claim 1, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02.
With regards to claim 2, it is noted that the septic tank is not positively claimed and that the source of the water to be purified does not further limit the method of purifying the water.
With regards to claim 3, note the full paragraph on the second page of the translation setting forth the presence of alkaline metals.
With regards to claim 6, as understood, note the seventh full paragraph on page 2 of the translation disclosing the alkaline treatment.
With regards to claim 7 note that recitations on page 1 of the translation of coal ash, limestone and clay.
With regards to claim 8 the limitation that the “method can adjust and amount of adsorption of ammonia nitrogen and/or phosphorus” this sets forth a capability and by adjusting flow rates of the amount of water or granules the method is capable of adjusting the amount of adsorption.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘680.
With regards to claim 4, WO ‘680 discloses in the ninth full paragraph on page 4 of the translation that the water contains phosphorus. It is noted that phosphates are a phosphorus material soluble in citric acid. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try selecting a phosphate as one of the finite number of types of phosphorus since choosing from a finite number of identified solution has a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
With regards to claim 5, the examiner gives official notice that sulfuric acid salts are common in water and at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to clarify such a water with the method as disclosed by WO ‘680.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘680 in view of CN 104478162 (cited by applicant, hereafter CN ‘162).
As set forth above, WO ‘680 discloses the method substantially as claimed but does not disclose that after use the ash is used in a fertilizer.
CN ‘162 discloses that the filter material is used to create a fertilizer after it has clarified water.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the ash of WO ‘680 in order to fabricate a fertilizer as taught by CN ‘162 in order to fully use all products of the method and reduce fast.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights