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 § 102/103
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 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.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Qisheng et al (CN 109096525 A).
With respect to claims 1 and 7, Qisheng teaches a biodegradable material formed from a combination of polymers (resin material) which can be employed in the field of water treatment and functions as a microbial carrier [n0001-n0005; n0007-n0008]. The material includes polymer resins in a foamed state and further includes a metal additive at the surface to enhance microbial attachment [n0046-n0048], where the metal additive may be an iron additive and may be present in a range of 0.1%-1% by weight [n0046], and may be e.g. a ferric hydroxide [n0051]. Qisheng is silent to the presence of any phosphorus.
As such the claimed material and a water treatment process employing such material are anticipated by the teachings of Qisheng given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Examiner notes that the instant claimed water treatment process does not require any particular steps beyond use of the material in a water treatment process. Alternatively, if Qisheng is not considered sufficiently specific regarding the iron content in such embodiments, at minimum the teachings of Qisheng are sufficient to render the instant claimed invention obvious due to the teaching of the appropriate range for the metal additive and the teaching that the metal additive may be an iron species. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A; "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 3, as above Qisheng teaches or at minimum suggests trivalent iron (via iron hydroxide which is produced using ferric i.e. trivalent iron [n0051]).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Qisheng teaches or at least suggest the use of polyesters which may be derived from multiple dicarboxylic acid to form the overall resin, including various copolymers formed from polybutylene succinate, polyhexane adipate, and the like [n0014] as well as other components such as polylactic acid and polyhydroxyalkanoate.
With respect to claim 6, the material is designed to provide a carbon source for denitrifying bacteria which would biodegrade the source [n0056]; provision of such bacteria in treatment applications is implicit or at minimum obvious over such teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8 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: The closest prior art regarding biodegradable carriers is taught by Qisheng as above, which teaches suitable polyester materials, additives, and use in water treatment for carrying denitrifying bacteria. Qisheng is silent to the use of phosphorus as a nutrient additive in the carrier material, or to any relationship between phosphorus concentration and iron concentration.
The closest prior art regarding the use of phosphorus in microbial carriers is represented by Hsu et al (US PGPub 2021/0380449 A1), disclosed by applicant on an IDS. Hsu teaches sewage treatment with a biological carrier [Abs] and suggests that phosphorus is a material for which microorganisms have high demand [0097] and that phosphorus and iron represent dry matter which may be present in the microbial material [0026]. There is no teaching or suggestion of producing a carrier material which contains phosphorus but not iron, nor is there any teaching or suggestion of producing a carrier which contains the two in select proportion as required by the claims.
The prior art as a whole would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a carrier with phosphorus in the absence of iron, or with phosphorus and iron in select proportions so as to arrive at the claimed invention. The inventions of claims 2 and 8 are therefore free from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights