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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 1, 3, 6, 10, and 15 and cancellation of claim 5 has been acknowledged.
With respect to Claims 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l), the applicant appears to traverse the rejection by amending to claim 15 to require “polymer material comprising a polyethylene material." The applicant further argues that the polymer used by Fuhrmann is a sulfur polymer cement (SPC) and that Fuhrmann does not disclose a polymer material comprising polyethylene (Remarks of 05/18/2026 at 11-12). 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Burbank (“Mixed Waste Solidification Testing on Polymer and Cement-Based Waste Forms in Support of Hanford's WRAP 2A Facility,” 1993 ). Burbank teaches polyethylene waste form performance was investigated due to perceived processing advantages over the thermosetting polymer (Burbank 10, polyethylene).
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.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhrmann (“Sulfur Polymer Solidification/Stabilization of elemental mercury waste”, 2001) and further in view of Burbank (“Mixed Waste Solidification Testing on Polymer and Cement-Based Waste Forms in Support of Hanford's WRAP 2A Facility,” 1993).
With respect to claim 15, the claim requires “A mercury-including waste product,” Fuhrmann teaches metallic mercury and mixed mercury waste (Fuhrmann 328, 2.1. Processing materials)
claim 15 further requires a “mercury-including waste product comprising: solid structures and pellets and the pellets solid structures comprising of mercuric sulfide within a polymer material.” Fuhrmann teaches generating mercuric sulfide and then solidifying that material in a sulfur polymer cement matrix (Sulfur polymer cement, SPC) and casting the treated waste into pellets (Fuhrmann 329, 3. Test Methods: treated waste) (Fuhrmann 333, 5. Summary and conclusions: mercuric sulfide).
Claim 15 further requires “the polymer material comprising a polyethylene material.” Fuhrmann does not explicitly teach a polymer material comprising a polyethylene material. However, Burbank teaches solidifying mercury-containing waste within a polyethylene matrix (Burbank 5, table 2) (Burbank 2 and 10, polyethylene).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modify Fuhrmann by substituting the polyethylene matrix taught by Burbank for Fuhrmann’s polymer cement matrix. Fuhrmann’s polymer cement matrix and Burbank’s polyethylene each function as a polymer matrix for solidifying and incorporating mercury containing waste. Accordingly, the substitution of Burbank’s polyethylene matrix for Furhrmann’s sulfur polymer matrix would have predictably resulted in Furhrmann’s structures and pellets being incorporated within a polymer material comprising polyethylene. It would have been obvious to substitute one known material for mercury immobilization for another with the predictable result of immobilizing mercury waste and preventing environmental contamination.
Regarding claim 16, Fuhrmann teaches centrifuging the reacted mixture to obtain a completed reaction, which could be considered as substantially evenly distributed (Fuhrmann 329, 3. Test Methods: Completeness).
Regarding claim 17, Fuhrmann teaches extra SPC (sulfur polymer cement) was added after the mercury had completely reacted with the sulfur to solidify and encapsulate the mercury waste (Fuhrmann 329, 3.1. Processing of mercury waste).
Regarding claim 18, Fuhrmann teaches solidifying mercuric sulfide in a solid sulfur matrix of the sulfur polymer cement (SPC) (Fuhrmann 333, 5. Summary and conclusions: mercuric sulfide).
Regarding claim 19, Fuhrmann teaches sulfur polymer cement (SPC) solidifying the mercury waste poured into metal cans (Fuhrmann 329, 3.1. Processing of mercury waste)
Regarding claim 20, Fuhrmann teaches producing the treated waste into pellets (Fuhrmann 329, 3. Test Methods: treated waste).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 PM.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights