DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s request for continued examination filed July 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 65, 75, 82, and 94 are amended and claim 83 is canceled. Claims 65-82 and 84-94 are pending and further considered on the merits.
Response to Amendment
In light of applicant’s amendment, the examiner modifies and further clarifies the grounds of rejection set forth in the office action filed April 29, 2026.
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.
Claim 65 is 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.
Claim 65 recites one or more mobile carriers comprising one or more types of nanoparticles “configured to become absorbed to one or more contaminants” and “adsorbed to the one or more contaminants”. However, according to applicant’s specification, the nanoparticles of the mobile carriers provide an adsorptive effect for charged contaminants rather than being “absorbed to one or more contaminants” or “adsorbed to the one or more contaminants”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the first clause of claim 65 to recite “configured to adsorb
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 65-74, 76-81, 83-89, 92, and 94 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by Mceachern et al., US 2020/0299805 (Mceachern).
Regarding claim 1, Mceachern discloses a system for treating contaminated water (abstract, figs. 3-4b) comprising:
One or more mobile carriers (see “titanium oxide molecular sieve”, abstract) each comprising a core (“polyacrylamide matrix”, ¶ 0039) coated with a porous and non-reactive binding agent comprising one or more types of nanoparticles configured to become at least one of physically and chemically associated with one or more contaminants (see “molecular sieve nanomaterial”, ¶ 0036 and “TiO adsorbent”, ¶ 0039):
A reactor (REF 148, see “batch reactors”, ¶ 0039) configured to:
Receive contaminated water comprising one or more contaminants (via REF 148a, see “lithium from energy process water”, abstract, ¶ 0003-0004, 0021), wherein at least a portion of the one or more contaminants have net charges (abstract, ¶ 0036);
Receive a solution comprising one or more acids (via REF 315, fig. 4b, ¶ 0044) or one or more bases (via REF 313, fig. 4, ¶ 0042); and
Output a reactor effluent (via REF 150a, fig. 4b) comprising water, having a desired pH, and the one or more mobile carriers having adsorbed the one or more contaminants (see “residual adsorbent”, ¶ 0043 and “titanium dioxide molecular sieve adsorbs lithium ions”, ¶ 0003-0004);
One or more solid-solid separation units (REF 152, fig. 3, ¶ 0043) configured to separate the reactor effluent into a first effluent and a second effluent (¶ 0043), wherein:
The first effluent comprises water having a desired pH, and is at least substantially free of the one or more mobile carriers and the one or more contaminants (via REF 160a, ¶ 0043); and
The second effluent has a desired pH and comprises the one or more mobile carriers having adsorbed the one or more contaminants (via REF 150, ¶ 0043).
Regarding claims 65-67 and 72, elements drawn to the composition of the water, contaminants, or property of treated fluid are not considered to provide patentable weight to the claims since these elements are not recited as part of the system but are rather elements worked upon by the system (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claims 68 and 70-71, elements drawn to an intended use, function, or manipulation are not considered to provide patentable weight to the claims since these elements are not associated with a structural component of the system for performing the claimed intended use, function, or manipulation.
Regarding claim 69, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the reactor is configured to mix a contaminated water, a solution comprising one or more acids/bases, and the one or more mobile carriers (via REF 148, ¶ 0039
Regarding claim 73, Mceachern discloses a system further comprising a disinfection unit (REF 164, fig. 3, ¶ 0048) configured to receive the treated water, the disinfection unit configured to destroy residual organic compounds in the treated water.
Regarding claim 74, Mceachern discloses a system where another solid-solid separation unit (REF 158, fig. 3, ¶ 0044) outputs the first effluent to a liquid-solid separation unit (REF 165, fig. 3, ¶ 0048), where a solution comprising one or more bases or one or more acids is added to water output from the liquid-solid separation unit (via REF 163, fig. 3, ¶ 0048).
Regarding claims 76-77, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the one or more mobile carriers occupy from 1 to 100% of a volume of the reactor (¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 78, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the reactor is partitioned to perform two or more processes in series or in parallel (REF 301, fig. 4b).
Regarding claims 79-80, elements drawn to hydraulic retention time and velocity gradient are considered to be functional language without a structural counterpart since retention time and velocity gradient necessarily require a flow rate. Therefore, these claim limitations are not considered to provide patentable weight to the claim.
Regarding claim 81, Mceachern discloses a system further comprising an oxidation unit (REF 164, fig. 3, ¶ 0048) configured to receive at least a portion of the second effluent (via 230a).
Regarding claim 84, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the one or more mobile carriers comprise a core (“polyacrylamide matrix”, ¶ 0039) coated with a porous and non-reactive binding agent comprising one or more types of nanoparticles (see “molecular sieve nanomaterial”, ¶ 0036 and “TiO adsorbent”, ¶ 0039), wherein the first mobile carrier has a dimension of 1 to 12500 microns (¶ 0039).
Regarding claims 85-89, Mceachern discloses a system wherein a size, shape, and porosity of the mobile carrier is formed through one or more physical processes, chemical processes, physical-chemical processes, or combination of these, where the mobile carrier has a naturally occurring shape (¶ 0039-0040).
Regarding claim 92, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the porous and non-reactive binding agent comprises one or more metal oxides (¶ 0039-0040).
Regarding claim 94, Mceachern discloses a system further comprising a second reactor in fluid communication with the one or more solid-solid separation units (REF 148, fig. 3), the second reactor configured to:
Receive the second effluent (via REF 150);
Receive a second solution comprising one or more bases or brines (via REF 313, 315, fig. 4b, ¶ 0042, 0044); and
Output a second reactor effluent (via REF 230a) having a desired pH and comprising the one or more contaminants separated from the one or more mobile carriers (¶ 0044).
Regarding claim 94, elements drawn to the composition of the water, contaminants, or property of treated fluid are not considered to provide patentable weight to the claims since these elements are not recited as part of the system but are rather elements worked upon by the system (MPEP 2115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 75 and 82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mceachern.
Regarding claim 75, Mceachern does not disclose the solid-solid separation unit using one of those separation techniques. However, it can be envisioned that a filtration technique among those recited is used to separate the solid adsorbent component from the liquid component, where those filtration techniques are widely known and routinely used in the art, including in Mceachern (¶ 0044, 0048, 0052).
Regarding claim 82, Mceachern does not disclose a system further comprising a liquid-solid separation unit or concentrator disposed in fluidic communication between the reactor and the one or more solid-solid separation units, where the liquid-solid separation unit or concentrator performs the same functions attributed to said solid-solid separation unit. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mceachern to replicate the separation unit since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, Part B).
Claim(s) 90-91 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mceachern in view of Ribet et al,. WO 2021/173608. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is relying on the US national stage entry of WO 2021/073608, hereinafter referred to/from as US 2023/0084588 (Ribet).
Regarding claim 90, Mceachern does not disclose the mobile carrier having a core that is naturally occurring. However, Ribet discloses a mobile carrier for removing and recovering one or more contaminants (see “magnetic nanoparticle coated porous materials”, abstract), where the mobile carrier has a naturally occurring core (see “the porous substrate may be composted of natural or synthetic materials”, ¶ 0021).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mceachern to utilize the naturally occurring core material described in Ribet since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known materials (as evidenced in Ribet) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 91, Ribet further discloses the core comprising a hydrophobic polymer (¶ 0024).
Claim(s) 93 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mceachern in view of Ribet as relied upon in the rejection of claims 90-91 set forth above, and in further view of Namiki, US 2014/0042068 (Namiki).
Regarding claim 93, while Mceachern (in view of Ribet) discloses the non-reactive binding agent comprising one or more magnetic nanoparticles (Ribet, abstract), Mceachern does not disclose the non-reactive binding agent further comprising one or more ion exchange resins. However, Namiki discloses composite particles for removing particles from contaminated fluids (abstract) wherein the composite particles have a coating comprising magnetic nanoparticles and ion exchange resins (¶ 0069-0071).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile carrier of Mceachern (in view of Ribet) to include the ion exchange resin as described in Namiki in order to provide additional binding modalities for decontamination of fluids.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding adsorption conditions, pH, effluent composition, etc. are not considered persuasive since these elements are not considered to provide patentable weight to the claims. As seen in the rejections set forth above, the examiner notes that these elements are considered to be compositions worked upon by the system rather than components of said system (MPEP 2115).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights