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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s request for continued examination filed December 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 18 are amended, claims 8-14, 16-17, and 30 are canceled, and claims 40-43 are newly added. Claims 1-7, 15, 18-29, and 31-43 are further considered on the merits.
Response to Amendment
In light of applicant’s amendment, the examiner modifies the grounds of rejection set forth in the office action filed October 1, 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 18-22, 24-27, 29, 32, and 35-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by Reeve et al., US 2021/0008522 (Reeve, of record).
Regarding claims 1-2, Reeve discloses a cationic-modified wood pulp comprising:
A cellulosic backbone (see “support material”, ¶ 0012-0013); and
A plurality of cationic groups such as an ammonium group (see “cationic polyamine” and “poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride)”, ¶ 0016), wherein each cationic group is attached to the cellulosic backbone (via amide bond seen in reaction schemes II-IX) via a corresponding linking group (see “bromoacetyl chloride”, ¶ 0065, reaction scheme I) containing 1-6 carbon atoms between the cellulosic backbone and a nitrogen atom of the ammonium group (reaction schemes II-IX);
Wherein the cationic wood pulp is in the form of granules (¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 4, Reeve discloses the wood pulp as free from functionalizing groups other than the cationic groups (¶ 0012, reaction schemes II-IX).
Regarding claim 32, Reeve discloses a wood pulp wherein the linking group is an alkylene group containing 1-6 carbon atoms (see “bromoacetyl chloride”, ¶ 0065) linked via an ester linkage (¶ 0063-0064, reaction schemes II-IX).
Regarding claims 36-39, Reeve discloses the wood pulp granules having a quasi-spherical shape and average diameter in the range of 10 µm to 10 mm (¶ 0046).
Regarding claim 18, Reeve discloses a method for treating water contaminated with a perfluoroalkyl (PFA) substance (abstract, ¶ 0019-0021) comprising:
Providing a contaminated water comprising a PFA substance (¶ 0019-0021);
Providing the cationic modified wood pulp as relied upon in the rejection of claims 1-2 set forth above (¶ 0019); and
Contacting the contaminated water with said cationic modified wood pulp for a time sufficient to adsorb at least a portion of the PFA substance from the contaminated water (¶ 0019).
Regarding claims 19-20, Reeve discloses a method wherein the PFA substance has 4-20 perfluorinated carbon atoms and has at least an anionic group (¶ 0021).
Regarding claim 21, Reeve discloses a method wherein the treated water has a PFA substance concentration that is 20% or less than that of the contaminated water (¶ 0087).
Regarding claim 22, Reeve discloses a method comprising contacting the contaminated water with the wood pulp for at least 5 seconds (¶ 0087).
Regarding claim 24, Reeve discloses a method wherein contacting the contaminated water is a continuous process (¶ 0087).
Regarding claim 25, Reeve discloses a method wherein the PFA substance is present in the contaminated water at a concentration in a range of 1 ng/L to 1 mg/L (¶ 0087).
Regarding claim 26, Reeve discloses a method wherein the contaminated water has a pH value in a range of 5 to 9 (fig. 4, ¶ 0086).
Regarding claim 27, Reeve discloses a method wherein the contaminated water further comprises sodium chloride at a concentration of 0 mg/L (¶ 0086).
Regarding claim 29, Reeve further discloses a method wherein loaded cationic-modified material is treated to degrade adsorbed PFAS (¶ 0058).
Regarding claim 35, Reeve is relied upon in the rejection of claim 32 set forth above.
Regarding claim 40, Reeve is relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 41, Reeve discloses a method wherein each linking portion in the cationic modified wood pulp is attached to a single cationic group (see reaction schemes II-IX).
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) 3, 5-7, 23, 28, 31, 33-34, and 42-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeve.
Regarding claims 3, 31, and 33-34, Reeve does not disclose the linking group being an ether linking group. However, Reeve recognizes alternative chemical linking strategies including ester, ether, and carbamate linkages as equally effective when functionalizing a substrate (¶ 0052).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the wood pulp/method of Reeve to utilize an ether linkage since the examiner notes the art-recognized equivalence of ester and ether linkages for their use in functionalizing substrates in the adsorbent art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be with the level or ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 42-43, while Reeve discloses general conditions for producing the cationic-modified wood pulp (see reaction schemes II-IX, Claim 47), Reeve does not disclose the recited amount of cationic groups per gram/backbone repeating unit of cationic-modified material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the recited amount of cationic groups since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a formulation involves only routine skill in the art absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05, Section II, Part A).
Regarding claim 23, while Reeve discloses adsorption kinetics and capacity of the cationic-modified material (figs. 2-3), Reeve does not disclose cationic-modified material having the recited adsorption capacity. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method such that the PFAS adsorption capacity is within the recited range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are recited in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of components to bring about a desired result involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05, Section II, Part A).
Regarding claim 28, while Reeve discloses sources of PFAS can be from groundwater (¶ 0009), contain a plurality of organic acids and/or organic matter particulates (¶ 0021, 0032, 0038, 0049), and the need to remediate diverse contaminated water sources, Reeve does not disclose a method wherein the contaminated water further comprises humic acids, fulvic acids, and/or humins. However, it would have been no more than obvious to provide groundwater containing humic acids, fulvic acids, and/or humins as the contaminated water source since Reeve recognizes the need to treat a plurality of water streams for contaminants and the use of the method for treating groundwater would provide no more than predictable and reliable results absent a showing to the contrary.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeve in view of Muramatsu et al., US 2019/0055694 (Muramatsu, IDS).
Regarding claim 15, Reeve does not disclose the cellulosic backbone being derived from wood pulp selected from softwood pulp, bamboo pulp, or hardwood pulp. However, Muramatsu discloses cellulose-based materials routinely used in purification processes (abstract, ¶ 0002-0003) can comprise cellulose from a variety of sources including bamboo, cloth, softwood pulp, and hardwood pulp (¶ 0010).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the wood pulp of Reeve to be derived from one of the sources described in Muramatsu since it has been held to be within the general skil of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Reeve, US 2021/0008522 (of record).
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 on (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