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
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-26, 34 and 35 pending.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24-26 and 34 are amended.
Claims 5, 8, 12, and 27-33 are cancelled.
Claim 35 is newly presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 34 recites “in the absence of ultrasonic cavitation”; “remain non-collapsing during operation”; and “without inducing ultrasonic bubble collapse”. The Examiner is unable to locate the support for this feature in the original disclosure.
The Examiner respectfully request that, if Applicant believes that there is support for this amendment in the original disclosure, Applicants provide the Examiner with the exact page with line and/or paragraph; figure with reference number(s) and/or the original claim number that supports each of the noted limitations.
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.
Claims 4, 9, 10, 20-25 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.
Claims 4, 9, 10, 20-25 recite CGAs. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, “CGAs” is understood as “colloidal gas aphrons (CGAs)”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-26, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim, Mohd Ali, et al. "Application of colloidal gas aphrons for pollution remediation." Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 87.3 (2012): 305-324 (hereinafter Hashim) in view of Lin, Jo-Chen, Ching-Yao Hu, and Shang-Lien Lo. "Effect of surfactants on the degradation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) by ultrasonic (US) treatment." Ultrasonics sonochemistry 28 (2016): 130-135 (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 1, Hashim discloses colloidal gas aphrons (hereinafter CGAs) are a system of spherical microbubbles capable of removing impurities, such as organic compounds/pollutants, from liquids, such as water (see Hashim page 305 Introduction; page 315 Pollutant Separation for a liquid phase; page 320 Conclusion), which is deemed a method for the decontamination of water.
Hashim discloses several methods of forming CGAs, including using a baffled beaker via a spinning disk to stir an aqueous surfactant solution, a dissolved air flotation, liquid pressure pump, air compressor, air pump, bubble diffuser, gas sparger, rotational porous plate and/or a powerful shear rotating pump (see Hashim page 305 Introduction; page 307/Generation of CGAs and Microbubles; Table 1). Hashim discloses that there are three types of surfactants to select from, i.e. anionic, cationic and neutral (see Hasim page 320 Conclusion). Hashim discloses that the production of microbubbles and CGAs by a CGAs generator in a baffled beaker is a classical method but that depending upon the desired properties of the CGAs, other instruments, such as fine nozzles, rotating pumps, highly pressurized gas, powerful and/or special pumps, may be used “thus leading to applications in different fields having different requirements such as size, monodispersity, surface properties and stability” (see Hashim page 307 Generation of CGAs and Microbubbles; Table 1), which is deemed generating colloidal gas aphrons by mixing under high shear forces gas, water, and one or more surfactants together.
Hashim does not disclose the water containing one or more PFAS.
Lin discloses the addition of surfactants in ultrasonic treatment can increase the removal of PFOA (see Lin page 130 Introduction; page 131-134 Results/Conclusion (Lin discloses “Surfactants … can be used to increase the solubility of hydrophobic organic contaminants in water to a point below the critical micelle concentration (CMC), thus facilitating their removal …. The addition of surfactant may therefore improve the energy efficiency of PFOA removal by US treatment” (see Lin page 130 Introduction).). Lin discloses “As PFOA is an anionic surfactant [37], CTAB is a cationic ion, and SDS is an anionic surfactant, they all migrate to the bubble-water interface thus decreasing the interfacial tension and making for their preferable adsorption. Thus, following the production of micro-plasma, PFOA and other surfactants readily adsorb onto their surfaces” (see Ling page 132 right column 1st paragraph) and “the addition of cationic surfactants (CTAB) may increase the surface concentration of PFOA on the bubble-water interface and increase the rate of defluorination” (see Ling page 132 right column 2nd paragraph).
Lin is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water treatment system, water-bubble interface to remove impurities from water, and/or use of a surfactant to remove impurities from water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the CGAs system, as disclosed in Hashim, to remove PFOA from water, as disclosed in Lin, because Lin discloses that PFOA are attracted to a surfactant surface of a water-bubble interface and Hashim discloses that CGAs consist of gas bubbles covered by a monolayer of surfactant molecules that have the advantage of achieving an extremely large interfacial area and assist with the adsorption of impurities, such as PFOAs as disclosed in Lin, at the microbubble interfaces (see Hashim abstract, figure 1 and pages 305-306 Properties of CGAs).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the CGAs system, as disclosed in Hashim, to the water containing PFOA, as disclosed in Lin, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of assisting with the removal of an impurity, such as PFOA, from water.
Hence, Hashim in view of Lin is deemed to disclose a method for the decontamination of water containing one or more PFAS, comprising the steps of generating colloidal gas aphrons by mixing under high shear forces gas, water, and one or more surfactants together.
Hashim in view of Lin discloses introducing the colloidal qas aphrons to water containing one of more PFAS (see Hashim page 310/Application of CGAs; page 315-317/Pollutant separation from a fluid phase; page 317-318/Particle separ4ation by flotation;Table 2; figures 3-4; see Lin page 131/Materials and methods and page 131-132/Results and Discussion).
Hashim in view of Lin discloses sorbing the PFAS to the CGAs to extract PFAS from the water (see Hashim abstract; page 306 physical phenomena; page 315 Pollutant separation from fluid phase; page 310 application of CGAs; Table 2 (Hashim discloses that “CGAs were found to function on the principles of bubble entrained floc flotation, electrostatic and ionic interaction, diffusion of entrapped gas and hydrophobicity of the pollutant particles” (see Hashim abstract).); see Lin page 131-32, section 3.1).
The materials and steps disclosed in Hashim in view of Lin will necessarily result in extracting PFAS from the water, as recited in claim 1. The materials and steps disclosed in Hashim in view of Lin appear to be substantially identical to the claimed material(s) and step(s) and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Hashim in view of Lin discloses different means of removing impurities absorbed to CGAs in liquid mediums (see Hashim figures 3-5; page 315-17 Pollutant separation from fluid phase page 320 Conclusion). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to remove the PFAS containing CGAs formed in Hashim in view of Lin from the water medium because it would assist with purifying the water and/or removing the PFAS impurity from water. Hence, Hashim in view of Lin is deemed to disclose separating the PFAS-containing colloidal gas aphrons from the water in a vessel for subsequent treatment or disposal.
Regarding claim 35, Hashim in view of Lin discloses a method for the decontamination of water containing one or more PFAS, comprising the steps of generating colloidal gas aphrons by mixing under high shear forces gas, water, and one or more surfactants together with the water that contains PFAS; sorbing the PFAS onto the colloidal gas aphrons to extract PFAS from the water; and separating the PFAS-containing colloidal gas aphrons from the water in a vessel for subsequent treatment or disposal (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 34, Hashim in view of Lin discloses a method for the decontamination of water containing one or more PFAS, comprising the steps of generating colloidal gas aphrons (CGAs) by mixing under high shear forces in the absence of ultrasonic cavitation using a spinning disc gas, water and one or more surfactants together (see rejection of claim 1; see Hashim page 305/Introduction).
Hashim in view of Lin does not disclose in the absence of ultrasonic cavitation. Hashim is relied upon for disclosing the step of generating colloidal gas aphrons. Hashim does not present any comments regarding ultrasonic cavitation. A plain reading of Hashim is deemed to disclose generating colloidal gas aphrons (CGAs) by mixing under high shear forces in the absence of ultrasonic cavitation using a spinning disc gas.
Hashim in view of Lin introducing the CGAs into a vessel containing the PFAS-containing water (see rejection of claim 1).
Hashim in view of Lin discloses the CGAs maintain a diameter of approximately 10-100 micrometers (see Hashim page 306/stability and foam drainage and Table 1).
Hashim in view of Lin discloses that CGAs are highly stable (see Hashim page 310/Application of CGAs & Pollutant removal from soil; page 315/Pollutant separation from a fluid phase). Hashim in view of Lin does not disclose remain non-collapsing during operation sorbing the PFAS to the CGAs to extract PFAS from the water without inducing ultrasonic bubble collapse. Hashim does not present any comments regarding ultrasonic cavitation nor ultrasonic bubble collapse. A plain reading of Hashim is deemed to disclose non-collapsing during operation sorbing the PFAS to the CGAs to extract PFAS from the water without inducing ultrasonic bubble collapse.
The materials and steps disclosed in Hashim in view of Lin will necessarily result in remaining non-collapsing during operation sorbing the PFAS to the CGAs to extract PFAS from the water without inducing ultrasonic bubble collapse, as recited in claim 34. The materials and steps disclosed in Hashim in view of Lin appear to be substantially identical to the claimed material(s) and step(s) and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Hashim in view of Lin discloses PFAS molecules are electrostatically sorbed to the CGA surfactant shells (see Lin page 130 Introduction; page 131-134 Results/Conclusion (Lin discloses “As PFOA is an anionic surfactant [37], CTAB is a cationic ion, and SDS is an anionic surfactant, they all migrate to the bubble-water interface thus decreasing the interfacial tension and making for their preferable adsorption. Thus, following the production of micro-plasma, PFOA and other surfactants readily adsorb onto their surfaces” (see Ling page 132 right column 1st paragraph) and “the addition of cationic surfactants (CTAB) may increase the surface concentration of PFOA on the bubble-water interface and increase the rate of defluorination” (see Ling page 132 right column 2nd paragraph).).
Hashim in view of Lin discloses separating the PFAS-containing CGAs from the water for further treatment or disposal (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses a surfactant, or surfactants with the same charge (either anionic or cationic), are used (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses at least two surfactants with different charges (anionic and cationic) are used (see Hashim page 310 right column last paragraph; Table 2; page 316 left column 1st full paragraph; page 317 left column 1st full paragraph and last paragraph; page 320 left column 1st full paragraph and right column 5th paragraph of conclusion; see Lin abstract; page 131-132 sections 3.1-3.2; page 134 section 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the selection of surfactants of Hashim in view of Lin to assist removal of a desired impurity. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of selecting a surfactant, either anionic, cationic and/or neutral, depending on the desired objective, removal of specific PFAS substance(s).
Regarding claim 4, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the properties of the CGAs are adjusted by at least one of the following: shear forces; mixing speed; or surfactant concentration (see rejection of claim 1; see Hashim Table 1; page 305-306 properties of CGAs).
Regarding claim 6, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses enclosed space for disposal is a batch system (see Hashim page 318 Flotation of fine pyrites & Separation of fine particles of CuO from silica; see Lin figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the method of Hashim in view of Lin in a batch-wise manner because it would assist with controlling and/or monitoring the reaction/purification treatment.
Regarding claim 7, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the enclosed space is a continuous reactor (see rejection of claim 6).
The term “continuous” may be an operation over a period of time without interruption.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a continuous reactor in the system and method of Hashim in view of Lin to assist in achieving a continuous treatment system and method (see MPEP 2144.04, V, E claims directed towards continuous operation would have been prima facie obvious over a batch process). This would yield the predictable result of assisting with removal of contaminants, such as PFOA and/or PFAS, from the water without interruption.
Regarding claim 9, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the CGAs are decanted from the vessel (see rejection of claim 6).
Regarding claim 10, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the CGAs are formed using a spinning disc to create the high sheer forces (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the water contains one PFAS (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claims 13-15, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses one or more of the PFAS are anionic, as recited in claim 13, discloses one or more of the PFAS are cationic, as recited in claim 14, and discloses one or more of the PFAS are zwitterionic, as recited in claim 15 (see rejection of claim 12).
Regarding claims 16-17, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses one or more of the PFAS comprise long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids, defined as sulfonates having more than six carbon atoms or carboxylic acids having more than eight carbon atoms, as recited in claim 16, and discloses one or more of the PFAS comprise short-chain perfluoroalkyl acids, defined as sulfonates having five or fewer carbon atoms or carboxylic acids having seven of fewer carbon atoms, as recited in claim 17 (see Lin page 131 section 2.1).
Regarding claim 18, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses one or more of the PFAS are PFAAs (see rejection of claims 1, 16 & 17).
Regarding claim 19, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses one or more of the PFAS are precursors (see rejection of claims 1, 16 & 17).
Regarding claim 20, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the plurality of CGAs extract PFAS from the water due to both electrostatic and hydrophobic processes (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses CGAs are pumped from the vessel (see rejection of claim 1; see Hashim Table 1 and figure 5; page 310 Application of CGAs).
Regarding claim 22, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the CGAs are decanted from the vessel (see rejection of claims 1 & 21).
Regarding claim 23, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the CGAs are directly disposed of (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 24, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the step where the CGAs are allowed to revert naturally to liquid form prior to transportation to treatment or disposal (see rejection of claim 1; see Hashim page 306 Stability and foam drainage).
The materials and steps disclosed in Hashim in view of Lin will necessarily result in naturally revert to liquid form, as recited in claim 24. The materials and steps disclosed in Hashim in view of Lin appear to be substantially identical to the claimed material(s) and step(s) and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 25, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the step where the CGAs are facilitated to revert to liquid form prior to transportation to treatment or disposal (see rejection of claims 1 & 24; see Hashim page 306 Stability and foam drainage; page 310 Application of CGAs).
Regarding claim 26, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin discloses baffles are placed in the vessel to change the flow direction in the vessel to facilitate the separation of the PFAS-containing colloidal gas aphrons from the vessel (see rejection of claim 1; see Hashim page 305 Introduction; page 307 Generation of CGAs and Microbubbles).
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao, Feng, et al. "PFOA and PFOS are generated from zwitterionic and cationic precursor compounds during water disinfection with chlorine or ozone." Environmental science & technology letters 5.6 (2018): 382-388 (hereinafter Xiao).
Regarding claims 13-15, Hashim in view of Lin discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin does not disclose one or more of the PFAS are anionic, as recited in claim 13, does not disclose one or more of the PFAS are cationic, as recited in claim 14, and does not disclose one or more of the PFAS are zwitterionic, as recited in claim 15 (see rejection of claim 1).
Xiao discloses a study of PFOA, PFAS and PFOS contaminants in water and the degradation of said contaminants by chlorine or ozone (see Xiao abstract, page 383 Materials and Method). Xiao discloses that “32% and 20% of these emerging PFASs are zwitterions and cations” (see Xiao page 382 right column 1st paragraph) and “Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) are anionic organic pollutants” (see Xiao page 382 abstract).
Xiao is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. PFAS/PFOA contaminants in water and/or water treatment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method and system of Hashim in view of Lin on the PFOA/PFOS/PFAS contaminants in water, as disclosed in Xiao, because it would assist with treatment of the water and/or because it would assist with the removal of impurities, such as PFOA/PFOS/PFAS, from water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the water of Hashim in view of Lin with the water, as disclosed in Xiao, because the method and system of Hashim in view of Lin would assist with removing an impurity, such as PFOA/PFOS/PFAS, from water.
Regarding claims 16-17, Hashim in view of Lin and Xiao discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin and Xiao discloses one or more of the PFAS comprise long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids, defined as sulfonates having more than six carbon atoms or carboxylic acids having more than eight carbon atoms, as recited in claim 16, and discloses one or more of the PFAS comprise short-chain perfluoroalkyl acids, defined as sulfonates having five or fewer carbon atoms or carboxylic acids having seven of fewer carbon atoms, as recited in claim 17 (see rejection of claims 13-15).
Regarding claim 18, Hashim in view of Lin and Xiao discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin and Xiao discloses one or more of the PFAS are PFAAs (see rejection of claims 12-15; see Xiao abstract and pages 382-383 Introduction).
Regarding claim 19, Hashim in view of Lin and Xiao discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Hashim in view of Lin and Xiao discloses one or more of the PFAS are precursors (see rejection of claims 12-15; see Xiao abstract and pages 382-383 Introduction).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 13-26 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 10, 11, 13-22, 24-27 and 34 of copending Application No. 18045493 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application 18045493 read on the claims of the present application, the copending claims recite substantially the same application, i.e. a method for the decontamination of water containing one or more PFAS, comprising the steps of generating colloidal gas aphrons (CGAs) by mixing under high shear forces gas, water, and one or more surfactants together; introducing the CGAs and a PFAS-containing water; sorbing the PFAS to the CGAs to extract PFAS from the water; and separating the PFAS-containing CGAs from the surface of the water for further treatment or disposal. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed between August 21, 2025 and October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, it was argued that “[T]here is no reason to combine the teaching of Hashim with the removal of PFAS as there is no teaching in Hashim to use CGAs in this manner, nor is there any teaching in Lin that would suggest looking to another method as taught in Hashim when Lin solves its problem using surfactants” (see Response page 9). Applicant notes that Lin discloses the removal mechanism as cavitation (see Response page 10); that the CGAs, as disclosed in Hashim, would not reproduce the results/mechanism of Lin (see Response pages 10-11); that Lin’s timeframe differs from Hashim’s (see Response page 11); one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider a surfactant solution, as disclosed in Lin, in combination with an aphron injection, as disclosed in Hashim (see Response page 11); that a cavitation bubble mechanism differs from an aphron (see Response pages 11-12). Applicant argued “Lin does not suggest adding bubbles at all, let alone complex CGAs. … Substituting CGAs would (i) move PFAS away from the reactive interface, (ii) damp cavitation, and (iii) impose a lifetime/operations mismatch” (see Response page 12). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
Lin was not relied upon for the degradation mechanism of ultrasonic cavitation. Rather, Lin was relied upon to illustrate the interaction of a surfactant and PFAS in water. Hashim discloses the use of surfactants in the formation of CGAs. Lin discloses the attraction between surfactants and PFAS. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the CGAs system, as disclosed in Hashim, to remove PFOA from water, as disclosed in Lin, because Lin discloses that PFOA are attracted to a surfactant surface of a water-bubble interface and Hashim discloses that CGAs consist of gas bubbles covered by a monolayer of surfactant molecules that have the advantage of achieving an extremely large interfacial area and assist with the adsorption of impurities, such as PFOAs as disclosed in Lin, at the microbubble interfaces (see Hashim abstract, figure 1 and pages 305-306 Properties of CGAs).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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 on 571-270-5954. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772