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 Status
Rejected Claims: 1-9 and 18-20
Withdrawn Claims: 10-17
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 28 JANUARY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 4, and 18 has been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the drawings, the objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, one of the objections to the claim 1 has been withdrawn. One objection to claim 1 and an objection to claim 18 have not been addressed in the current amendment.
In view of the amendment to claims 1 and 18, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 28 JANUARY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1 and claim 18, that Kevern in view of Cannon and in view of Lombardo for claim 18, does not teach the use of biochar without an activation step and that it would not be obvious to substitute biochar for activated carbon and so claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed Page 10 to Page 14, Paragraph 3 and Page 15, Paragraph 2 to Page 20, Paragraph 3).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, Bakari teaches the same biochar of instant claims 1 and 18 and its replacement of conventional activated carbon because the bio-char is a low cost alternative with promising sorption performance (Abstract). Therefore, claims 1 and 18 are not allowable.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 2-9 and 19-20, that claims 2-9 depend upon claim 1 and so they are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1 (Arguments filed Page 14, Paragraph 4 to Page 15, Paragraph 1 and Page 20, Paragraph 4).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, claim 1 is not allowable and so claims 2-9 are also not allowable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “a combination of thereof” in line 10 of the claim should read “a combination thereof”.
In Claim 18, “the bed” in line 18 of the claim should read “the packed bed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kevern et al (US Patent Application No. 20200239332 A1) hereinafter Kevern in view of Bakari et al (Bakari Z, Fichera M, El Ghadraoui A, Renai L, Giurlani W, Santianni D, Fibbi D, Bruzzoniti MC, Del Bubba M. Biochar from co-pyrolysis of biological sludge and woody waste followed by chemical and thermal activation: end-of-waste procedure for sludge management and biochar sorption efficiency for anionic and cationic dyes. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2024 May;31(24):35249-35265. doi: 10.1007/s11356-024-33577-3. Epub 2024 May 9. PMID: 38720130; PMCID: PMC11136814) hereinafter Bakari.
Regarding Claim 1, Kevern teaches a granular filter media (i.e., a filtration medium treating water matrices, the filtration medium comprising; Abstract)
that contains remediation materials in contact with aggregate, in which the aggregate includes sand (i.e., sand)
and perlite (i.e., perlite)
and the remediation materials include zero valent iron (i.e., zero-valent iron)
and activated carbon (Paragraphs 0008-0012)
where the media can capture organic contaminants such as PFAS (i.e., wherein the filtration medium is configured to remove a plurality of substances, the plurality of substances comprising per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)), and a combination of thereof; Paragraph 0047).
Kevern does not teach that the activated carbon is a biochar, wherein the biochar is produced by pyrolysis of biomass without a subsequent activation step.
However, Bakari teaches the use of biochars in place of commercially available activated carbon (i.e., the activated carbon is a biochar) produced by pyrolysis for sorption of contaminants in wastewater (Page 35249, Abstract), specifically organic micro pollutants (Page 35263, Conclusion, Paragraph 3), with the biochar being created via the pyrolysis of waste woody biomass at temperatures with no extra activation steps described (i.e., wherein the biochar is produced by pyrolysis of biomass without a subsequent activation step; Page 35251, Materials and Methods, Paragraphs 2-4) as a low-cost alternative material (Page 35250, Introduction, Paragraph 2).
Bakari is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the use of biochar for the remediation of industrial wastewater (Page 35249, Abstract, Keywords). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the granular filter media as taught by Kevern to use biochar instead of activated carbon as taught by Bakari because the biochar would be a low-cost alternative sorbent.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the filtration medium is configured to remove a plurality of substances, the plurality of substances comprising per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)), and a combination of thereof and wherein the plurality of substances comprise varying chain lengths and polarities, whereby the filtration media targets at least one of the plurality of substances by at least hydrophobic interaction, electrostatic attraction, and ligand exchange” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 2, Bakari further teaches that the zero-point charge of several different biochar is above 9, including 9.6, 9.7, and 10.1 (i.e., wherein the biochar has a point of zero charge greater than 9.0; Supplemental Data, Table S3).
Regarding Claim 3, Bakari further teaches various biochar with BET measurement specific surface area (SSA) values at or above 300 m2/g, including 336 m2/g, 552 m2/g, 370 m2/g, and 300 m2/g (i.e., wherein the biochar has a BET surface area of at least 300 m2/g; Supplemental Data, Table S4).
Regarding Claim 4, Bakari further teaches that the wood is mainly consisting of oak and poplar, which are known hardwood trees (i.e., wherein the biochar is derived from hardwood biomass subjected to the pyrolysis; Page 35251, Materials and Methods, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Kevern further teaches that the remediation materials can include from 0-15% by volume (Paragraph 0033) and that the chosen aggregates are optimized for their absorption properties (Paragraph 0009).
Kevern in view of Bakari does not teach the explicit range of sand comprising from 60-90% by weight of the total composition. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the weight of sand that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Kevern in view of Bakari.
Regarding Claim 7, Kevern further teaches that the remediation material can include attapulgite, which is a natural clay that is known to have a pH between 7.5 and 8.5 (i.e., further comprising clay configured to provide pH buffering between 6.5 and 7.5; Paragraph 0012).
Regarding Claim 8, furthermore, the limitation “wherein the pH buffering effect is sufficient to maintain bed pH stability for at least 24 hours of flow-through operation” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kevern in view of Bakari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (US Patent Application No. 20110174743 A1) hereinafter Huang.
Regarding Claim 5, Kevern in view of Bakari does not teach wherein the ZVI is derived from recycled iron filings.
However, Huang teaches that industrial iron filings and highly pure iron for use as zero-valent iron shows no difference in reactivity (i.e., wherein the ZVI is derived from recycled iron filings; Paragraph 0211).
Huang is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to compositions for treating fluid contaminants (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the zero valent iron made obvious by Kevern in view of Bakari with the industrial iron filings as taught by Huang because they are known equivalents in the art with no difference in reactivity.
Regarding Claim 9, Huang further teaches that zero valent iron has reducing power (i.e., wherein the ZVI provides local reducing conditions; Paragraph 0047).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the ZVI provides local reducing conditions favoring ligand exchange with PFAS compounds” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kevern in view of Bakari in view of Lombardo et al (US Patent Application No. 20220324724 A1) hereinafter Lombardo.
Regarding Claim 18, Kevern teaches a granular filter media (Abstract)
that contains remediation materials in contact with aggregate (i.e., the packed bed comprising), in which the aggregate includes sand (i.e., sand)
and perlite (i.e., perlite)
and the remediation materials include zero valent iron (i.e., zero-valent iron),
attapulgite (i.e., clay),
and activated carbon (Paragraphs 0008-0012) where the media can capture organic contaminants such as PFAS (Paragraph 0047).
Kevern does not teach that the activated carbon is a biochar, wherein the biochar is produced by pyrolysis of biomass without a subsequent activation step.
However, Bakari teaches the use of biochars in place of commercially available activated carbon (i.e., the activated carbon is a biochar) produced by pyrolysis for sorption of contaminants in wastewater (Page 35249, Abstract), specifically organic micro pollutants (Page 35263, Conclusion, Paragraph 3), with the biochar being created via the pyrolysis of waste woody biomass at temperatures with no extra activation steps described (i.e., wherein the biochar is produced by pyrolysis of biomass without a subsequent activation step; Page 35251, Materials and Methods, Paragraphs 2-4) as a low-cost alternative material (Page 35250, Introduction, Paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the granular filter media as taught by Kevern to use biochar instead of activated carbon as taught by Bakari because the biochar would be a low-cost alternative sorbent.
Kevern in view of Bakari do not teach (1) a filtration system, (2) the filtration system comprising a vertically oriented housing having an inlet and an outlet, (3) a packed bed disposed within the housing, wherein a plurality of substances comprising a plurality of chain lengths are retained at varying depths within the packed bed during flow-through treatment, (4) wherein at least one of the plurality of substances comprising long-chain lengths is retained predominately in an upstream portion of the packed bed and at least one of the plurality of substances comprising short-chain lengths migrate to a downstream portion, and (5) wherein the housing is configured to allow access to discrete vertical segments of the packed bed for sampling.
However, Lombardo teaches a media vessel for water treatment (i.e., a filtration system, the filtration system comprising; housing; Abstract)
with an inlet (Fig. 1a #120) located on the top of the vessel (Paragraph 0040) and an outlet located on the bottom of the vessel (i.e., a vertically oriented housing having an inlet and an outlet; Paragraph 0034)
in which the vessel houses one or media beds in a layered arrangement (i.e., a packed bed disposed within the housing, the packed bed comprising a homogenous or layered bed; Paragraphs 0009 and 0037)
with the top media treating the long-chain PFAS while the bottom media treats the short-chain PFAS (i.e., wherein a plurality of substances comprising a plurality of chain lengths are retained at varying depths within the packed bed during flow-through treatment, wherein at least one of the plurality of substances comprising long-chain lengths is retained predominately in an upstream portion of the packed bed and at least one of the plurality of substances comprising short-chain lengths migrate to a downstream portion; Paragraph 0038)
and wherein the vessel includes various sample ports strategically positioned within the vessel at different depths (i.e., wherein the housing is configured to allow access to discrete vertical segments of the packed bed for sampling; Paragraph 0046) where the vessel offers the benefit of flexibility with regards to the media used for treating any particular water source (Paragraph 0043).
Lombardo is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to water treatment using activated carbon (Abstract) for the purpose of removing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (Paragraphs 0015-0017). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the filtration media made obvious by Kevern in view of Bakari to use the media vessel as taught by Lombardo because the media vessel would provide flexibility in media bed usage.
Regarding Claim 19, Lombardo further teaches that the vessel houses one or media beds in a layered arrangement (Paragraphs 0009 and 0037) with the top media treating the long-chain PFAS while the bottom media treats the short-chain PFAS (Paragraph 0038) and wherein the vessel includes various sample ports strategically positioned within the vessel at different depths (i.e., wherein sampling from the top and bottom of the packed bed indicates a higher plurality of short-chain length substances in the downstream portion relative to the upstream portion; Paragraph 0046).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein sampling from the top and bottom of the packed bed indicates a higher plurality of short-chain length substances in the downstream portion relative to the upstream portion” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein sampling from the top and bottom of the packed bed indicates a higher plurality of short-chain length substances in the downstream portion relative to the upstream portion” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 20, Kevern further teaches where the media can capture organic contaminants such as PFAS (i.e., wherein the plurality of substances comprise per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); Paragraph 0047).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the plurality of substances comprise per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)), and a combination of thereof” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights