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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 MAY 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-9 and 18-25
Withdrawn Claims: 10-17 and 26-28
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 26 MAY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, and 18, and the addition of new claims 21-28 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claims 1 and 18, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to the claims 1 and 18, new art has been found and a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been made for claim 1 and a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been made for claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 26 MAY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Kevern and Bakari do not teach the specific medium composition in the newly added limitations to instant claims 1 and 18, therefore instant claims 1 and 18 are now allowable (Arguments filed 26 MAY 2026, Page 9 to Page 11, Paragraph 2, Page 11 and Paragraph 5 to Page 13, Paragraph 3).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant 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.
Applicant argues that instant claims 2-9 and 19-25 depend upon instant claims 1 and 18 and so instant claims 2-9 and 19-25 are also allowable (Arguments filed 26 MAY 2026, Page 11, Paragraphs 3-4, and Page 13, Paragraph 4 to Page 14, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, instant claims 1 and 18 are not allowable and so instant claims 2-9 and 19-25 are also not allowable.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, “the filter medium” in line 3 of the claim should read “the filtration medium”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kilgus-Vesely, Sydney, "Comparing Phosphorus Removal Efficiencies and Mechanisms via Two Cost-Effective Specialty Adsorbents in a Cascade Upflow Filtration System" (2023). Honors Undergraduate Theses. Release Date 15 MAY 2023. 1369. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/1369 (hereinafter Kilgus-Vesely).
Regarding Claim 1, Kilgus-Vesely discloses the use of BIPGEM media for water treatment (i.e., a filtration medium for treating water matrices, the filtration medium comprising; Abstract, Page ii)
which is composed of 5% biochar which is created by heating biomass under low oxygen conditions (i.e., biochar, wherein the biochar is produced by pyrolysis of biomass without a subsequent activation step; approximately 5% biochar; Page 5, Paragraph 2),
5% perlite (i.e., perlite; approximately 5% perlite),
80% sand (i.e., sand; approximately 80% sand),
5% zero valent iron (i.e., zero-valent iron (ZVI); approximately 5% zero-valent iron (ZVI) by volume),
5% clay (i.e., clay; approximately 5% clay; Page 7, Table 2),
and that the sorption media is a mix of the materials listed (i.e., wherein the filtration medium comprises a homogenous granular mixture of; Page 8).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the filtration medium is configured to remove a plurality of substances, 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).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the plurality of substances comprise varying chain lengths and polarities” 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.
Regarding Claim 6, Kilgus-Vesely further discloses that the porosity of the BIPGEM is 27.37% (i.e., wherein the porosity of the filtration medium is between about 10% and about 50%; Page 22, Table 5).
Regarding Claim 9, 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).
Regarding Claim 23, 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.
Regarding Claim 24, the limitation “wherein the plurality of substances comprise one or more anionic components” 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.
Regarding Claim 25, the limitation “wherein the plurality of substances include nitrates” 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kilgus-Vesely with support from Jeon, I., Nam, K. Change in the site density and surface acidity of clay minerals by acid or alkali spills and its effect on pH buffering capacity. Sci Rep 9, 9878 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46175-y (hereinafter Jeon).
Regarding Claim 7, Kilgus-Vesely further discloses that the clay used in the BIPGEM composition is kaolinite (Pages 37 and 46). Kilgus-Vesely does not explicitly disclose that kaolinite provides pH buffering between pH 6.5 and pH 7.5. However, Jeon demonstrates that kaolinite has buffering capacity at a pH of 6.5 in Fig. 4 of the study (i.e., the clay provides pH buffering between pH 6.5 and pH 7.5; Page 6).
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilgus-Vesely, Sydney, "Comparing Phosphorus Removal Efficiencies and Mechanisms via Two Cost-Effective Specialty Adsorbents in a Cascade Upflow Filtration System" (2023). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 1369. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/1369 (hereinafter Kilgus-Vesely) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bakari Z, et al. 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 2, Kilgus-Vesely does not teach wherein the biochar has a point of zero charge greater than 9.0.
However, Bakari teaches the use of biochars in place of commercially available activated carbon produced by pyrolysis for sorption of contaminants in wastewater (Page 35249, Abstract), specifically organic micro pollutants (Page 35263, Conclusion, Paragraph 3), and 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) where biochar is well known to be optimizable for physical and chemical properties based on the thermochemical conversion process and feedstock used for production (Page 35250, Paragraph 2, Introduction).
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 BIPGEM media as taught by Kilgus-Vesely to use biochar with a point of zero charge as taught by Bakari because the biochar would be a low-cost alternative sorbent and biochar is well known to be optimized for physical and chemical properties.
Regarding Claim 3, Kilgus-Vesely does not teach wherein the biochar has a BET surface area of at least 300 m2/g.
However, Bakari teaches the use of biochars in place of commercially available activated carbon produced by pyrolysis for sorption of contaminants in wastewater (Page 35249, Abstract), specifically organic micro pollutants (Page 35263, Conclusion, Paragraph 3), 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), and where biochar is well known to be optimizable for physical and chemical properties based on the thermochemical conversion process and feedstock used for production (Page 35250, Paragraph 2, Introduction).
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 BIPGEM media as taught by Kilgus-Vesely to use biochar with a BET surface area as taught by Bakari because the biochar would be a low-cost alternative sorbent and biochar is well known to be optimized for physical and chemical properties.
Regarding Claim 4, Kilgus-Vesely does not teach wherein the biochar is derived from hardwood biomass subjected to the pyrolysis.
However, Bakari teaches the use of biochars in place of commercially available activated carbon produced by pyrolysis for sorption of contaminants in wastewater (Page 35249, Abstract), specifically organic micro pollutants (Page 35263, Conclusion, Paragraph 3), that comes from wood which 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) and where biochar is well known to be optimizable for physical and chemical properties based on the thermochemical conversion process and feedstock used for production (Page 35250, Paragraph 2, Introduction).
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 BIPGEM media as taught by Kilgus-Vesely to use biochar derived from oak and poplar as taught by Bakari because the biochar would be a low-cost alternative sorbent and biochar is well known to be optimized for physical and chemical properties.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilgus-Vesely as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang US Patent Application No. US 20110174743 A1 (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding Claim 5, Kilgus-Vesely 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 as taught by Kilgus-Vesely with the industrial iron filings as taught by Huang because they are known equivalents in the art with no difference in reactivity.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilgus-Vesely.
Regarding Claim 8, Kilgus-Vesely further teaches a hydraulic conductivity for BIPGEM of 0.034 cm/s, or 3.4 x 10-4 m/s (Page 22, Table 5) and that flow patterns have a strong correlation with removal efficiencies for a medium (Page 15).
Kilgus-Vesely does not explicitly teach wherein the hydraulic conductivity of the filtration medium is between about 0.5 x 10-4 m/s and about 2.5 x 10-4 m/s, but teaches an identical medium composition with a hydraulic conductivity of 3.4 x 10-4 m/s and that flow patterns have a strong correlation with removal efficiencies for a medium. 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))(See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the hydraulic conductivity of the BIPGEM to be within the range of the instant application to adjust the flow pattern to optimize removal efficiencies of contaminants for the BIPGEM medium.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilgus-Vesely in view of Lombardo et al US Patent Application No. US 20220324724 A1 (hereinafter Lombardo).
Regarding Claim 18, Kilgus-Vesely discloses the use of BIPGEM media for water treatment (Abstract, Page ii) with two sets of cascade upflow reactors (i.e., a filtration system, the filtration system comprising; Page 9),
wherein the upflow reactors have an inlet for water that flows through the bottom of the media and an outlet that flows from an upper region of the reactor after passing the media bed (i.e., a vertically oriented housing having an inlet and an outlet; Fig. 3; Pages 9-10),
wherein the media bed (i.e., a packed bed disposed within the housing, the packed bed comprising) is composed of 5% biochar which is created by heating biomass under low oxygen conditions (i.e., biochar; wherein the biochar is produced by pyrolysis of biomass without a subsequent activation step; approximately 5% biochar; Page 5, Paragraph 2), 5% perlite (i.e., perlite; approximately 5% perlite), 80% sand (i.e., sand; approximately 80% sand), 5% zero valent iron (i.e., zero-valent iron (ZVI); approximately 5% zero-valent iron (ZVI) by volume), 5% clay (i.e., clay; approximately 5% clay; Page 7, Table 2), and that the sorption media is a mix of the materials listed (i.e., a homogenous bed; Page 8).
Kilgus-Vesely does not teach (1) wherein a plurality of substances comprising a plurality of chain lengths are retained at varying depths within the packed bed during flow-through treatment, (2) 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 (3) 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 cascade filters as taught by Kilgus-Vesely to use the media vessel as taught by Lombardo because the media vessel would provide flexibility in media bed usage.
Furthermore, the limitation “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 predominantly 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” 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 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, 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.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitation “wherein the plurality of substances comprise one or more anionic components” 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.
Regarding Claim 22, the limitation “wherein the plurality of substances include nitrates” 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
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
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights