DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-4, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickelsen et al (2017/0297926 A1).
Nickelsen et al discloses a system for treating a source of water contaminated with PFAS (the abstract).
As shown in figure 3, Nickelsen discloses a PFAS separation stage including an inlet of flow of water contaminated with PFAS 108, an anion exchange vessel 102, an outlet of flow of treated water 116, and a spent regenerant solution outlet 170 and 122.
As shown in figure 3, Nickelsen discloses the outlet 122 is fluidly connected to another stage to further treat the spent regenerant solution 122. This stage includes many subsystems including evaporation subsystem 130, distillation subsystem 142, membrane separation subsystem 144 to produce solution of concentrated PFAS, salt or base and water 136.
As shown in figure 3, Nickelsen discloses two small vessels 160 and 170 are become saturated with PFAS, they are can be removed and taken off-site for destruction (0029-0038; note specially 0034 and 0035).
As disclosed in paragraph 0013, the PFAS can be removed by advanced oxidation which is used in the claimed process to remove the PFAS is ineffective and/or expensive. In other words, this method is non-preferred. However, this method can remove PFAS.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nickelsen process by employing an advantage oxidation reactor for removing the PFAS in the Nickelsen process to arrive at the applicants’ claimed system since non-preferred embodiments can be indicative of obviousness. Merch & Co. V. Biocraft Laboratories Inc. 10 USPQ 2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1976); In re Kohler 177 USPQ 399 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972).
As discussed above, Nickelsen discloses the destruction of PFAS is offsite from the system. Therefore, it can be interpreted as the vessels containing PFAS can be destructed in somewhere in the plant but still onsite and/or offsite with respect to the source of water.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nickelsen by destructing PFAS onsite with respect to the source to the water to save the cost of transportation of these small vessels to other locations.
The overall elimination rate of PFAS as recited in claim 1, the predetermined threshold of the treated water as recited in claims 2-4 are desirable and depend on the desired purity of the recovered water and the reclaimed regenerant solution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nickelsen system by selecting elimination rate of PFAS and predetermined thresholds for the recovered tap water to meet the safety requirement of the recovered water.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, in paragraph 0036, Nickelsen discloses “the sample tap 156 and 158 as shown for testing the level of PFAS in the treated water 116. When PFAS are detected in treated water...anion exchange resin need to be regenerated”. This means there is a control system to regulate the feed directed between the PFAS separation stage and the PFAS separation stage.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, as discussed above, the separation stage has ion exchange vessel 102 which is regenerated to remove PFAS to generate PFAS stream 122.
Paragraph 0030 discloses the regeneration solution comprising NaOH, methanol. And water as recited in claim 10.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickelsen et al (2017/0297926 A1) in view of Freydina et al (8,894,834 B2).
Nickelsen does not disclose the system further comprising a hardness removal stage. However, Freydina discloses water treatment system removing a portion of any hardness causing species (the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nickelsen system by including a hardness removal stage if the water contains hardness causing species.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickelsen et al (2017/0297926 A1) in view of Boo et al “High Performance Nanofiltration Membrane for Effective Removal of Perfluoroalkyl Substances at High Water Recovery”.
Nickelsen does not disclose the PFAS separation stage comprising nanofiltrations as recited in claims 11-13. However, Boo discloses nanofilter is effective to remove PFAS (see the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nickelsen system by also including nanofiltration modules in the separation stage since they also function similarly as the Anion exchange Vessel to arrive at the applicants’ claimed system.
Claim(s) 14-17, 19, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickelsen et al (2017/0297926 A1) in view of Cho (2020/0171409 A1),.
Nickelsen discloses a system having a separation stage including an ion exchange vessel as discussed above.
Nickelsen does not disclose the PFAS separation stage involves adsorption on an electrochemically active substance as called for in claims 14-16. However, Cho discloses a water treatment system including an adsorption column including GAC that adsorbs contaminants from
untreated water. The GAC comprises electrodes disposed at a distal side of the adsorption column (see the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nickelsen separation stage by also including a GAC adsorption column with the ion exchange separator" !° in the Nickelsen separation stage since Cho discloses that the GAC surface with in-situ arc plasma can remove PFAS continuously from water and then decomposes/destroys PFAS collected on the GAC surface (0013).
Regarding claim 17, GAC is known as a crude form of graphite.
Regarding claim 20, Cho discloses generating an electrical voltage between the a first electrode and a second electrode to form a plasma discharge within the GAC, thereby regenerating the GAC within the adsorption column (0012).
Regarding claim 22, as discussed above, Cho discloses GAC surface with in-situ arc plasma can remove PFAS continuously from water and then decomposes/destroys PFAS collected on the GAC surface (0013).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nickelsen system by also including a GAC adsorption column as the PFAS elimination stage in-situ instead of using small anion exchange resin vessels 160 or 170 to destroy the trapped PFAS since GAC can do similar function.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickelsen et al (2017/0297926 A1) in view of Ball et al (2018/0319685 A1).
Nickelsen discloses a system as discussed above.
Nickelsen does not disclose the PFAS separation stage includes foam fraction. However, Ball discloses PFAS may be physically removed from the water by concentrating the PFAS into bubbles/aerosols that can then be trapped and collected (0016).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nickelsen system by concentrating the PFAS into bubbles/aerosols that can then be trapped and collected as taught by Ball since PFAS can be removed and collected from water.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 58 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument “Nickelsen fails to disclose or suggest an AOP reactor as presently recited. Nickelsen identifies advanced oxidation as an example of a conventional technique for attempting to remove PPAS that is “ineffective and/or extremely expensive.” (See Nickelsen at [{O13]].) Thus, one of ordinary skull in the art would not have been motivated to modify Nickelsen to include an AOP reactor.” is not persuasive as discussed in the above rejection.
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 THUAN D DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Insuk C 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.
/THUAN D DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772