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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 2-16, 19, and 21-24 in the reply filed on 30 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 21, while drawn to an apparatus, makes direct reference to claim 9 as a functional limitation such that claim 21 is dependent on claim 9, and restriction requirement under 37 CFR 1.475 (b) is directed to unity of invention between separate independent claims in an application (“Remarks”, pg. 10, par. 1-4). This is not found persuasive because although claim 21 references claim 9, the apparatus can be used to practice another process such as a process for treating soil contaminated with hydrocarbons, such that claim 21 does not include the limitations of claim 9, and is not a proper dependent claim (See MPEP 608.01(n) III).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected groups I and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 30 January 2026.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 30 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 2-5 and 21 are amended; claim 24 is added. Accordingly, claims 1-16, 19, and 21-24 remain pending in the application with claims 2-16, 19, and 22-24 considered in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 21 September 2022 and 8 May 2024 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 5, “the vessel” should read “the vessel”; there appears to be an extra space here.
Claim 9, line 7, "heatingthe" should read "heating the".
Claim 13, line 4, "microwave radiation," should read "microwave radiation."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 6 and 14 recites the limitation "the body of particulate solids". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, the body of particulate solids has inherent antecedent basis as the particulate solids necessarily form a body.
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 14 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 14 recites the limitation "the closed vessel" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is interpreted as required the vessel is a closed vessel.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 23 recites all of the same features as claim 19. Therefore, claim 23 is not further limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US 2019/0314876) in view of Yu (CN 1850371) and Dickinson (US 2016/0166868).
Regarding Claim 9, Oberle discloses a method of remediating soil (soil meets the limitation of particulate solids per pg. 2 of the Specification of the present application) contaminated with PFAS, the method comprising: using heater wells to heat the soil and permit evaporation of the PFAS compounds from the soil ([0012]; Fig. 1, step 102 and 104). Oberle further discloses in step 106 the evaporated PFAS compounds (aka vapour) can be captured once released from the soil and, in step 108, PFAS can be removed from the vapor stream by cooling the vapor stream and condensing the PFAS (Fig. 1; [0019]). Oberle further discloses in steps 110 and 112 steam may be produced in the process or added to the process to allow for capture of the PFAS in a condensed and concentrated aqueous solution where the PFAS are then destroyed in a continuous process using electro-oxidation techniques such as advanced electrochemical oxidation or an electrical discharge plasma reactor as provided in step 114 (capturing, condensing, and destroying the PFAS meets the limitation of transferring vapour to a treatment stage, treating in the treatment stage the transferring vapour, thereby at least partially converting the vapourized PFAS into at least on safer substance, the step of treating the transferred vapour in the treatment stage comprising exposing the PFAS to a plasma within a treatment zone, whereby PFAS molecules are subject to at least partial dissociation while entering and passing through the treatment zone; [0019], Fig. 1). The destroying the PFAS compounds in Oberle meets the limitation of converting the vaporized PFAS into at least one safer substance, and partial dissociation of PFAS while entering and passing through the treatment zone. The destroying PFAS using an electrical discharge plasma reactor in Oberle meets the limitation of exposing the PFAS to a plasma within a treatment zone.
Oberle is silent to locating the soil contaminated with PFAS in a vessel and heating the soil using microwave radiation.
Yu discloses a process utilizing microwave thermal desorption to treat persistent organic pollutants (PFAS is a persistent organic pollutant and therefore, persistent organic pollutants meets the limitation of PFAS), such as PCBs, in contaminated soil [0002]. Yu further discloses loading the soil into a reactor (loading the soil into a reactor meets the limitation of locating particulate solids contaminated with PFAS in a vessel) and starting a microwave generator to irradiate the reactor, and capturing the generated steam, wherein the steam comprises the PCBs [0013]. Yu further discloses the selected microwave frequency is 2450MHz or 915MHz [0014] and the power of the microwave generator is adjusted from several hundred watts to tens of kilowatts [0015], such that Yu meets the limitation of generating microwave radiation of pre-determined frequency or frequencies and power level or levels and directing the microwave radiation to the particulate solids in the vessel, thereby heating the particulate solids and promoting vaporization of the PFAS. Yu further discloses since microwave heating is an internal heating process, microwave energy can directly act on water and other microwave-absorbing materials in the soil, which greatly shortens the processing time, saves energy, and reduces processing costs [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu to locate the particulate solids contaminated with PFAS in a vessel; generating microwave radiation of pre-determined frequency or frequencies and power level or levels; directing the microwave radiation to the particulate solids in the vessel, thereby heating the particulate solids and promoting vaporisation of the PFAS, because using microwave heating, which is an internal heating process, compared to conventional heating methods, greatly shortens the processing time, saves energy, and reduces processing costs, as recognized by Yu [0022].
Oberle is further silent to exposing the PFAS vapour to a plasma.
Oberle, however, discloses capturing the PFAS vapour in a condensed and concentrated aqueous solution where the PFAS are then destroyed in an electrical discharge plasma reactor [0019].
Dickinson discloses using a plasma to convert a perfluorocarbon (aka PFC) (perfluorocarbons are a type of PFAS and therefore, PFC meets the limitation of PFAS) gas to an abated material (abated material meets the limitation of a safer substance; [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Dickinson to expose the transferred vapour to a plasma, because Oberle teaches the claimed invention except that a solution comprising PFAS is treated with plasma instead of a vapour, and Dickinson teaches that a vapour comprising PFAS is treated with plasma to produce a safer substance, such that treating PFAS vapour and PFAS solution with plasma are equivalent methods known in the art. Therefore, because the two methods were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the PFAS solution for the PFAS vapour.
Regarding Claim 10, Oberle is silent to the plasma source of the electrical discharge plasma reactor.
Dickinson discloses the plasma source may be an inductively coupled plasma source, a capacitively coupled plasma source, a direct current plasma source (direct current plasma is a type of electrical discharge plasma), or a microwave plasma source [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Dickinson wherein the plasma in the treatment zone is created and/or is maintained by directing to the treatment zone microwave radiation from a secondary microwave generator that is operatively associated with the treatment zone, because Oberle teaches the claimed invention except that electrical discharge plasma is used instead of microwave plasma, and Dickinson teaches that the electrical discharge plasma (aka direct current plasma) and microwave plasma are equivalent methods known in the art. Therefore, because the two methods were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the electrical discharge plasma for the microwave plasma.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US 2019/0314876) in view of Yu (CN 1850371) and Dickinson (US 2016/0166868) and Wang (CN 110170514).
Regarding Claim 11, Oberle, Yu, and Dickinson teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 9.
Oberle is silent to the particulate solids that are contaminated with PFAS are mixed either intermittently or continuously while the microwave radiation is directed to the particulate solids in the vessel, thereby promoting heating of the particulate solids and vaporisation of the PFAS.
Wang discloses a soil remediation device wherein microwave generators emit microwaves through microwave tubes to heat the contaminated soil, and during the heating process, the pollutants in the soil volatilize and move upward with the steam [0007]. Wang further discloses an agitator is started, and the blades on the agitator shaft can turn over the contaminated soil (agitator turning over soil meets the limitation of mixing) inside the inner cavity (inner cavity meets the limitation of vessel), so that the soil can be heated evenly and the pollutants in the soil can volatilize more easily (starting the agitator after starting microwave radiation meets the limitation of mixing intermittently while the microwave radiation is directed to the particulate solids in the vessel; [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Wang to mix the contaminated solids either intermittently or continuously while the microwave radiation is directed to the particulate solids in the vessel, thereby promoting heating of the particulate solids and vaporisation of the PFAS so that the soil can be heated evenly and the pollutants in the soil can volatilize more easily, as recognized by Wang [0007].
Regarding Claim 14, Oberle is silent to a batch of the particulate solids contaminated with PFAS is located in a closed vessel, and during the direction of the microwave radiation to the body of particulate solids, the batch is mixed either intermittently or continuously, thereby exposing the batch of particulate solids substantially throughout its volume to the microwave radiation for a vaporisation period during which no further particulate solids are added to the vessel; and wherein the vapour containing the PFAS that is yielded up by the batch is removed from the vessel and treated prior to discharge of the treated particulate solids from the vessel.
Wang discloses soil remediation in a closed space (closed space meets the limitation of a closed vessel; [0007]). Wang further discloses a soil remediation device wherein microwave generators emit microwaves through microwave tubes to heat the contaminated soil, and during the heating process, the pollutants in the soil volatilize and move upward with the steam [0007]. Wang further discloses an agitator is started, and the blades on the agitator shaft can turn over the contaminated soil (agitator turning over soil meets the limitation of mixing) inside the inner cavity (inner cavity meets the limitation of vessel), so that the soil can be heated evenly and the pollutants in the soil can volatilize more easily (starting the agitator after starting microwave radiation meets the limitation of during the direction of the microwave radiation to the body of particulate solids, the batch is mixed intermittently, thereby exposing the batch of particulate solids substantially throughout its volume to the microwave radiation for vaporisation period; [0007]). Wang further discloses a blower draws the volatilized pollutants (volatilized pollutants meets the limitation of the vapour containing the PFAS that is yielded up by the batch) out of the flue through the exhaust pipe (out of the flue through the exhaust pipe meets the limitation of removed from the vessel) for further processing, and after processing, the outlet door is opened, and the processed soil is discharged from the inner cavity for the next step of backfilling (discharging the process soil after processing the volatilized pollutants meets the limitation of treating prior to discharge of the treated particulate solids from the vessel; [0007]), such that during the direction of the microwave radiation, no further particulate solids are added to the vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Wang to place a batch of the particulate solids contaminated with PFAS in a closed vessel, and during the direction of the microwave radiation to the body of particulate solids, the batch is mixed either intermittently or continuously, thereby exposing the batch of particulate solids substantially throughout its volume to the microwave radiation for a vaporisation period during which no further particulate solids are added to the vessel; and wherein the vapour containing the PFAS that is yielded up by the batch is removed from the vessel and treated prior to discharge of the treated particulate solids from the vessel so that the soil can be heated evenly and the pollutants in the soil can volatilize more easily, as recognized by Wang [0007], and treating the PFAS vapour prior to removing the solids is a process parameter well-known in the art of remediating particulate solids contaminated with PFAS, as recognized by Wang.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US 2019/0314876) in view of Yu (CN 1850371) and Dickinson (US 2016/0166868) and Tao (CN 202045125).
Regarding Claim 12, Oberle, Yu, and Dickinson teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 9.
Oberle is silent to the particulate solids that are contaminated with PFAS are progressively fed into the vessel, either by continuous feeding of the particulate solids or by intermittent feeding of charges of the particulate solids; and the heated particulate solids that have yielded up PFAS by vaporisation are progressively removed from the vessel; the particulate solids being progressively moved from a soil feed location of the vessel to a soil removal location of the vessel while being exposed to the microwave irradiation.
Tao discloses a continuous (continuous meets the limitation of progressively fed by continuous feeding and progressively moved) microwave soil remediation device comprising a feeding machine, a microwave generating device, a waste gas recovery device, etc. [0009]. Tao further discloses under the action of microwave and hot air, the pollutants and soil are separated, and the pollutants are sent into a waste gas pool through a waste gas recovery port and the remediated soil is sent to a recovery belt through a conveyor belt [0025]. Tao further discloses under the control of the PLC control center, a continuous system can achieve fully mechanized and non-stop operation, with high speed, good effect, low energy consumption and high efficiency [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Tao to progressively feed into the vessel, either by continuous feeding of the particulate solids or by intermittent feeding of charges of the particulate solids; and the heated particulate solids that have yielded up PFAS by vaporisation are progressively removed from the vessel; the particulate solids being progressively moved from a soil feed location of the vessel to a soil removal location of the vessel while being exposed to the microwave irradiation in order to achieve non-stop operation, with high speed, good effect, low energy consumption and high efficiency, as recognized by Tao [0014].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US 2019/0314876) in view of Yu (CN 1850371) and Dickinson (US 2016/0166868) and Tao (CN 202045125) and Adams (US 11,111,439).
Regarding Claim 13, Oberle, Yu, Dickinson, and Tao teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 12.
Oberle and Yu are silent to the vessel in which the microwave radiation is directed to the particulate solids includes a microwave-transparent wall or window composed of a microwave-transparent material through which the particulate solids are exposed to the microwave radiation.
Adams discloses a method for reducing an organic-containing material into lower molecular weight gaseous hydrocarbons, liquid hydrocarbons and solid carbon constituents utilizing microwave radiation (Abstract). Adams further discloses the microwave produces heat and a gaseous product (Col. 6, lines 16-17). Adams further discloses each magnetron transmits its energy via a waveguide through a dual quartz pressure window assembly which is microwave transparent (dual quartz pressure window assembly which is microwave transparent meets the limitation of a microwave-transparent wall or window composed of a microwave-transparent material), and the dual quartz window assembly generally operates to contain the pressure within the microwave applicator and prevent any potentially hazardous gas from entering the waveguide back to the microwave generator (Col. 5, lines 47-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu and Adams to include a microwave-transparent wall or window composed of a microwave-transparent material through which the particulate solids are exposed to the microwave radiation in order to contain the pressure within the microwave applicator and prevent any potentially hazardous gas from entering the waveguide back to the microwave generator, as recognized by Adams (Col. 5, lines 47-54).
Claims 15, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US 2019/0314876) in view of Yu (CN 1850371) and Dickinson (US 2016/0166868) and Adams (US 11,111,439).
Regarding Claim 15, Oberle, Yu, and Dickinson teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 9.
Oberle is silent to subjecting the particulate solids to a two-stage heating process comprising: a first lower energy preheating stage in which the particulate solids are heated to vaporize water in the particulate solids and thereby dry the particulate solids to a pre- determined reduced moisture content; and a second higher energy heating stage in which the microwave radiation is directed to the particulate solids in the vessel having the reduced moisture content, thereby promoting vaporization of the PFAS.
Adams discloses a method for reducing an organic-containing material into lower molecular weight gaseous hydrocarbons, liquid hydrocarbons and solid carbon constituents utilizing microwave radiation (Abstract). Adams further discloses the microwave produces heat and a gaseous product (Col. 6, lines 16-17). Adams further discloses a heat exchanger which preheats and preconditions the tire shreds (aka the organic-containing material), prior to utilizing microwave radiation, to a consistent moisture level (heating to a consistent moisture level meets the limitation of a first lower energy preheating stage in which the particulate solids are heated to vaporize water in the particulate solids and thereby dry the particulate solids to a pre- determined reduced moisture content) which allows more even heating and reduction during the microwave reduction process (microwave reduction process/microwave radiation meets the limitation of a second higher energy heating stage in which the microwave radiation is directed to the particulate solids in the vessel having the reduced moisture content, thereby promoting vaporization of the PFAS; Col. 7, lines 58-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Adams to subject the particulate solids to a two-stage heating process comprising: a first lower energy preheating stage in which the particulate solids are heated to vaporize water in the particulate solids and thereby dry the particulate solids to a pre- determined reduced moisture content; and a second higher energy heating stage in which the microwave radiation is directed to the particulate solids in the vessel having the reduced moisture content, thereby promoting vaporization of the PFAS to allow for more even heating and reduction during the microwave reduction process, as recognized by Adams (Col. 7, lines 58-62).
Regarding Claim 19, Oberle and Yu are silent to the microwave radiation directed to the particulate solids is generated by a microwave generator; and wherein the microwave radiation is transferred by a waveguide to the vessel through a microwave transparent wall of, or window in, the vessel, the waveguide incorporating a tuner operative to match an impedance of the microwave generator and associated waveguide to an impedance of the particulate solids in the vessel, thereby improving a microwave energy transfer efficiency to the particulate solids.
Adams discloses a method for reducing an organic-containing material into lower molecular weight gaseous hydrocarbons, liquid hydrocarbons and solid carbon constituents utilizing microwave radiation (Abstract). Adams further discloses the microwave produces heat and a gaseous product (Col. 6, lines 16-17). Adams further discloses each magnetron transmits its energy via a waveguide through a dual quartz pressure window assembly which is microwave transparent (dual quartz pressure window assembly which is microwave transparent meets the limitation of a microwave-transparent wall or window composed of a microwave-transparent material), and the dual quartz window assembly generally operates to contain the pressure within the microwave applicator and prevent any potentially hazardous gas from entering the waveguide back to the microwave generator (Col. 5, lines 47-54). Adams further discloses the waveguide assembly having a three-stub tuner for matching load impedances to provide maximum power transfer between the generator and the organic-containing material (claim 6), such that improving microwave energy transfer efficiency to the particulate solids is necessarily present in Adams because of impedance matching.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu and Adams to include a microwave-transparent wall or window composed of a microwave-transparent material through which the particulate solids are exposed to the microwave radiation in order to contain the pressure within the microwave applicator and prevent any potentially hazardous gas from entering the waveguide back to the microwave generator, as recognized by Adams (Col. 5, lines 47-54), and to incorporate a tuner operative to match an impedance of the microwave generator and associated waveguide to an impedance of the particulate solids in the vessel, thereby improving a microwave energy transfer efficiency to the particulate solids, in order to provide maximum power transfer between the generator and the organic-containing material, as recognized by Adams (claim 6).
Regarding Claim 23, Oberle and Yu are silent to the microwave radiation directed to the particulate solids is generated by a microwave generator; and wherein the microwave radiation is transferred by a waveguide to the vessel through a microwave transparent wall of, or window in, the vessel, the waveguide incorporating a tuner operative to match an impedance of the microwave generator and associated waveguide to an impedance of the particulate solids in the vessel, thereby improving a microwave energy transfer efficiency to the particulate solids.
Adams discloses a method for reducing an organic-containing material into lower molecular weight gaseous hydrocarbons, liquid hydrocarbons and solid carbon constituents utilizing microwave radiation (Abstract). Adams further discloses the microwave produces heat and a gaseous product (Col. 6, lines 16-17). Adams further discloses each magnetron transmits its energy via a waveguide through a dual quartz pressure window assembly which is microwave transparent (dual quartz pressure window assembly which is microwave transparent meets the limitation of a microwave-transparent wall or window composed of a microwave-transparent material), and the dual quartz window assembly generally operates to contain the pressure within the microwave applicator and prevent any potentially hazardous gas from entering the waveguide back to the microwave generator (Col. 5, lines 47-54). Adams further discloses the waveguide assembly having a three-stub tuner for matching load impedances to provide maximum power transfer between the generator and the organic-containing material (claim 6), such that improving microwave energy transfer efficiency to the particulate solids is necessarily present in Adams because of impedance matching.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu and Adams to include a microwave-transparent wall or window composed of a microwave-transparent material through which the particulate solids are exposed to the microwave radiation in order to contain the pressure within the microwave applicator and prevent any potentially hazardous gas from entering the waveguide back to the microwave generator, as recognized by Adams (Col. 5, lines 47-54), and to incorporate a tuner operative to match an impedance of the microwave generator and associated waveguide to an impedance of the particulate solids in the vessel, thereby improving a microwave energy transfer efficiency to the particulate solids, in order to provide maximum power transfer between the generator and the organic-containing material, as recognized by Adams (claim 6).
Claims 16 and 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US 2019/0314876) in view of Yu (CN 1850371) and Dickinson (US 2016/0166868) and Yang (CN 102389892).
Regarding Claim 16, Oberle, Yu, and Dickinson teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 9.
Oberle discloses heating soil contaminated with PFAS to evaporate the PFAS, capturing the evaporated PFAS using a vapor recovery system, and destroying in a continuous process using an electrical discharge plasma reactor [0019], such that Oberle meets the limitation wherein the vapour containing PFAS is continuously drawn and transferred into the treatment stage.
Yu discloses loading the soil into a reactor (reactor meets the limitation of a vessel) and starting a microwave generator to irradiate the reactor, and capturing the generated steam, wherein the steam comprises the PCBs (capturing generated steam meets the limitation of the vapour containing PFAS yielded by the particulate solids is drawn from the vessel during the directing of the microwave radiation to the particulate solids in the vessel; [0013]).
Oberle and Yu are silent to transferring the vapour containing PFAS by creating a negative pressure downstream of the treatment stage which thereby draws the vapours from the vessel into and through the treatment stage.
Yang discloses applying microwave radiation to contaminated soil, which causes solvent-based organic pollutants (PFAS is an organic pollutant and therefore organic pollutants meets the limitation of PFAS) to escape the soil as vapor [0030]. Yang further discloses the collection of high-molecular organic solvents that overflow from the soil in vapor form can be achieved by using a negative pressure suction method (negative pressure suction method meets the limitation of creating a negative pressure downstream; [0044]).
Regarding the vapor recovery system for capturing the evaporated PFAS, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary methods of vapor recovery for the evaporated PFAS. Yang teaches using a negative pressure method for recovering the evaporated organic pollutants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a negative pressure downstream of the treatment stage which thereby draws the vapours from the vessel into and through the treatment stage in order to form a conventional method for remediating particulate solids contaminated with PFAS using known and tested methods predictably suitable for recovering evaporated PFAS.
Regarding Claim 24, Oberle and Yu are silent to creating a partial vacuum at a location where at least a portion of the heated particulate solids are located, thereby further promoting vaporization of the PFAS from the particulate solids.
Yang discloses applying microwave radiation to contaminated soil, which causes solvent-based organic pollutants (PFAS is an organic pollutant and therefore organic pollutants meets the limitation of PFAS) to escape the soil as vapor [0030]. Yang further discloses the collection of high-molecular organic solvents that overflow from the soil in vapor form can be achieved by using a negative pressure suction method (negative pressure suction method meets the limitation of creating a partial vacuum at a location where at least a portion of the heated particulate solids are located; [0044]), such that promoting vaporization of the PFAS from the particulate solids is necessarily present because of the negative pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu and Yang to create a partial vacuum at a location where at least a portion of the heated particulate solids are located, thereby further promoting vaporization of the PFAS from the particulate solids, in order to collect the vaporized organic pollutants, as recognized by Oberle [0044].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US 2019/0314876) in view of Yu (CN 1850371) and Dickinson (US 2016/0166868) and Tao (CN 202045125) and Adams (US 11,111,439) and Clawson (US 5,658,094).
Regarding Claim 22, Oberle, Yu, Dickinson, Tao, and Adams teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 13.
Oberle and Yu are silent to the vessel comprising a tube into which particulate solids to be treated are fed, the tube being inclined and being continuously or intermittently vibrated and/or rotated as the solids are fed therethrough, thereby causing the particulate solids to progressively travel by gravity down the inclined tube to an exit therefrom.
Clawson discloses a system for remediating soil contaminated with short-chain hydrocarbons, long-chain hydrocarbons, and PCB's (Abstract). Clawson further discloses introducing the contaminated soil into a first inner region by a sealed feeding means, rotating the inclined rotary drum (inclined rotary drum meets the broad limitation of a tube into which particulate solids to be treated are fed, the tube being inclined and being continuously or intermittently rotated as the solids are fed therethrough) to operatively and gravitationally urge the soil from the input end to the reactor end (Col. 3, lines 63-67), such that causing the particulate solids to progressively travel by gravity down the inclined tube to an exit therefrom is necessarily present in Clawson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu and Clawson wherein the vessel comprises a tube into which particulate solids to be treated are fed, the tube being inclined and being continuously or intermittently vibrated and/or rotated as the solids are fed therethrough, thereby causing the particulate solids to progressively travel by gravity down the inclined tube to an exit therefrom in order to operatively and gravitationally urge the soil from the input/output end to the reactor end, as recognized by Clawson (Col. 3, lines 66-67).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US 2019/0314876) in view of Yu (CN 1850371) and Dickinson (US 2016/0166868) and Yang (CN 102389892) and Taniwaki (US 2006/0283364).
Regarding Claim 2, Oberle, Yu, Dickinson, and Yang teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 24.
Oberle and Yu are silent to creating the partial vacuum in the vessel while the particulate solids are located therein; and wherein the step of directing the microwave radiation comprises directing the microwave radiation into the particulate solids below a surface level of the particulate solids in the vessel, whereby a significant proportion of available energy of the microwave radiation is absorbed into the particulate solids before that energy reaches a gas space above the surface level of the particulate solids, thereby reducing a chance of plasma formation in the gas space above the particulate solids.
Yang discloses applying microwave radiation to contaminated soil, which causes solvent-based organic pollutants (PFAS is an organic pollutant and therefore organic pollutants meets the limitation of PFAS) to escape the soil as vapor [0030]. Yang further discloses the collection of high-molecular organic solvents that overflow from the soil in vapor form can be achieved by using a negative pressure suction method (negative pressure suction method meets the limitation of creating a partial vacuum in the vessel while the particulate solids are located therein; [0044]).
Taniwaki discloses if the center axis of radiation of microwaves radiated underground from the microwave radiator is set in a substantially horizontal direction, only the soil in a layer in a predetermined depth range (predetermined depth range meets the limitation of below a surface level of the particulate solids in the vessel) is increased in temperature by induction heating [0015], such that the limitation wherein a significant proportion of available energy of the microwave radiation is absorbed into the particulate solids before that energy reaches a gas space above the surface level of the particulate solids, thereby reducing a chance of plasma formation in the gas space above the particulate solids is necessarily present as a result of directing the microwave radiation into the particulate solids below a surface level of the particulate solids in the vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu and Taniwaki to create a partial vacuum in the vessel while the particulate solids are located therein; and wherein the step of directing the microwave radiation comprises directing the microwave radiation into the particulate solids below a surface level of the particulate solids in the vessel, whereby a significant proportion of available energy of the microwave radiation is absorbed into the particulate solids before that energy reaches a gas space above the surface level of the particulate solids, thereby reducing a chance of plasma formation in the gas space above the particulate solids, in heat the soil in a predetermined depth range, as recognized by Taniwaki [0015].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US 2019/0314876) in view of Yu (CN 1850371) and Dickinson (US 2016/0166868) and Yang (CN 102389892) and Takahashi (US 2008/0025899).
Regarding Claim 3, Oberle, Yu, Dickinson, and Yang teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 24.
Oberle and Yu are silent to directing the microwave radiation is discontinued after a period of heating time; and wherein the step of creating the partial vacuum is performed substantially simultaneously with or after the discontinuation of the step of directing microwave radiation, thereby creating the partial vacuum in the vessel.
Takahashi discloses stopping the supply of the microwave while maintaining a gas flow rate and a pressure, followed by stopping the gas supply and exhausting the inside of the chamber to vacuum (exhausting to vacuum after stopping the microwave meets the limitation of creating the partial vacuum after the discontinuation of the step of directing microwave radiation, thereby creating the partial vacuum in the vessel; [0088]). Takahashi further discloses, in this manner, the process and the vacuum evacuation were alternately performed 1000 times [0088].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu and Takahashi to discontinue microwave radiation after a period of heating time; and wherein the step of creating the partial vacuum is performed substantially simultaneously with or after the discontinuation of the step of directing microwave radiation, thereby creating the partial vacuum in the vessel, because this allows for the process to be repeated several times, as recognized by Takahashi [0088].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US 2019/0314876) in view of Yu (CN 1850371) and Dickinson (US 2016/0166868) and Yang (CN 102389892) and Wang (CN 110170514).
Regarding Claim 4, Oberle, Yu, Dickinson, and Yang teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 24.
Oberle and Yu are silent to discontinuing the microwave radiation after a period of heating time; and wherein after the step of directing the microwave radiation is ended, the heated particulate solids are transferred from the vessel to an extraction stage, thereby enabling further contaminated particulate solids contaminated with PFAS to be located in the vessel and to be heated therein, and wherein the step of creating the partial vacuum is performed in the extraction stage.
Wang discloses soil remediation in a closed space (closed space meets the limitation of a closed vessel; [0007]). Wang discloses a soil remediation device wherein microwave generators emit microwaves through microwave tubes to heat the contaminated soil, and during the heating process, the pollutants in the soil volatilize and move upward with the steam [0007]. Wang further discloses an agitator is started, and the blades on the agitator shaft can turn over the contaminated soil (agitator turning over soil meets the limitation of mixing) inside the inner cavity (inner cavity meets the limitation of vessel), so that the soil can be heated evenly and the pollutants in the soil can volatilize more easily (starting the agitator after starting microwave radiation meets the limitation of mixing intermittently while the microwave radiation is directed to the particulate solids in the vessel; [0007]). Wang further discloses a blower draws the volatilized pollutants out of the flue through the exhaust pipe for further processing, and after processing, the outlet door is opened, and the processed soil is discharged from the inner cavity for the next step of backfilling (discharging the process soil after processing the volatilized pollutants for the next step of backfilling meets the limitation of after the step of directing the microwave radiation is ended, the heated particulate solids are transferred from the vessel to an extraction stage, thereby enabling further contaminated particulate solids contaminated with PFAS to be located in the vessel and to be heated therein; [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Wang to mix the contaminated solids either intermittently or continuously while the microwave radiation is directed to the particulate solids in the vessel, thereby promoting heating of the particulate solids and vaporisation of the PFAS so that the soil can be heated evenly and the pollutants in the soil can volatilize more easily, as recognized by Wang [0007] and transferring the particulate solids out of the vessel after microwave radiation enabling further contaminated particulate solids to be located in the vessel to be heated is a process parameter well-known in the art of remediating particulate solids contaminated with PFAS, as recognized by Wang.
Yang discloses the pollutants are converted into gaseous pollutants and discharged from the soil under reduced pressure [0006], wherein high-molecular organic solvents that overflow from the soil in vapor form can be achieved by using a negative pressure suction method, which involves setting up suction ports within a partially enclosed space on the ground (reduced pressure/negative pressure meets the limitation of a partial vacuum; [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu and Yang to create a partial vacuum in an extraction stage in order to collect the vaporized organic pollutants, as recognized by Oberle [0044].
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US 2019/0314876) in view of Yu (CN 1850371) and Dickinson (US 2016/0166868) and Yang (CN 102389892) and Cha (US 6,207,023) as evidenced by Minamida (US 4,649,256).
Regarding Claim 5, Oberle, Yu, Dickinson, and Yang teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 24.
Oberle and Yu are silent to a plasma inhibition step that inhibits formation of plasma in a gas space above a level of the particulate solids during the step of directing the microwave radiation into the particulate solids.
Yu, however, is silent to generating plasma in the microwave radiation step.
Cha discloses a process of decomposing adsorbed hazardous materials (Abstract), such as contaminated soil (Col. 1, lines 12-22). Cha further discloses irradiating a substantially saturated bed with microwaves while a simultaneous sweep gas removes desorbed vapors, where said sweep gas is nitrogen or helium (claim 15).
Minamida discloses helium inhibits the production of plasma (Col. 7, lines 13-14), such that the process of Cha meets the limitation of a plasma inhibition step that inhibits formation of plasma in a gas space above a level of the particulate solids during the step of directing the microwave radiation into the particulate solids.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu and Cha to inhibit the formation of plasma in a gas space above a level of the particulate solids during the step of directing the microwave radiation into the particulate solids by implementing an inert gas such as helium or nitrogen as a sweep gas to remove the vapors, as recognized by Cha (claim 15).
Regarding Claim 6, Oberle and Yu are silent to a plasma inhibition step.
Yu, however, discloses the power of the microwave generator is adjusted from several hundred watts to tens of kilowatts, and a higher power is used at the beginning of the reaction and a lower power is used in the later stage of the reaction to prevent damage to the reactor or microwave generator due to excessive soil temperature [0015].
Yu is silent to the pressure of the higher power and lower power microwave heating stages.
Adams discloses one microwave applicator containing said purge gas in a pressurized state above local atmospheric pressure to insure that no air migrates into said microwave applicator which might cause a fire or explosion hazard (Col. 2, lines 44-47).
Yang discloses pollutants are converted into gaseous pollutants and discharged from the soil under reduced pressure [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu, Adams, and Yang to inhibit plasma formation by directing the microwave radiation to the body of particulate solids in stages comprising: (i) a higher power microwave heating stage during which higher power microwave energy is applied to the particulate solids while simultaneously a pressure within the vessel greater than atmospheric pressure (101 kPa) is maintained, to insure that no air migrates into said microwave applicator which might cause a fire or explosion hazard, as recognized by Adams (Col. 2, lines 46-47), and (ii) a lower power microwave heating stage during which a lower power microwave energy is applied to the particulate solids and simultaneously a partial vacuum is created in the vessel in which the lower power microwave energy is being applied and during which PFAS are being vaporized for removal from the particulate solids, the higher power microwave energy being higher in power than the lower power microwave energy to aid in vaporization of the pollutants in the soil, as recognized by Yang [0006].
Regarding Claim 7, Yu further discloses the power of the microwave generator is adjusted from several hundred watts to tens of kilowatts, and a higher power is used at the beginning of the reaction and a lower power is used in the later stage of the reaction to prevent damage to the reactor or microwave generator due to excessive soil temperature [0015]. Yu further discloses the microwave power is adjusted according to the change of soil bed temperature to keep the soil bed temperature below 200°C [0015], such that the higher power and lower power microwave heating stages are alternated, thereby improving an effectiveness of PFAS extraction by higher power heating and higher vacuum extraction.
Regarding Claim 8, Oberle and Yu are silent to a plasma inhibition step that includes increasing an amount of inert gas in a gas atmosphere mixed with and surrounding the particulate solids while they are undergoing the heating by the microwave radiation, thereby inhibiting creation of plasma in the gas space above the level of particulate solids in the vessel during the step of directing the microwave radiation into the particulate solids.
Yu, however, is silent to generating plasma in the microwave radiation step.
Cha discloses a process of decomposing adsorbed hazardous materials (Abstract), such as contaminated soil (Col. 1, lines 12-22). Cha further discloses irradiating a substantially saturated bed with microwaves while a simultaneous sweep gas removes desorbed vapors, where said sweep gas is nitrogen or helium (nitrogen and helium meet the limitation of an inert gas; claim 15).
Minamida discloses helium inhibits the production of plasma (Col. 7, lines 13-14), such that the process of Cha meets the limitation of increasing an amount of inert gas in a gas atmosphere mixed with and surrounding the particulate solids while they are undergoing the heating by the microwave radiation, thereby inhibiting creation of plasma in the gas space above the level of particulate solids in the vessel during the step of directing the microwave radiation into the particulate solids.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberle to incorporate the teachings of Yu and Cha to increase an amount of inert gas in a gas atmosphere mixed with and surrounding the particulate solids while they are undergoing the heating by the microwave radiation, thereby inhibiting creation of plasma in the gas space above the level of particulate solids in the vessel during the step of directing the microwave radiation into the particulate solids, because inert gases such as helium or nitrogen are used as a sweep gas to remove the vapors, as recognized by Cha (claim 15), which necessarily inhibits plasma formation, as recognized by Minamida (Col. 7, lines 13-14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735