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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/29/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
Upon further consideration of claims filed 7/7/2025 and 1/21/2026, it is noted that claims 10-16 and 18-20 are subjected to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) new matter issues as set forth below.
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 10-16 and 18-20 are 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 10 recites,
“…wherein an amount of uranium present in the waste stream is greater than an amount of the first target radionuclide and the second target radionuclide combined, and the waste stream in the upstream segment of the main waste pathway comprises a gram/liter level of uranium that is at least 500 times greater than a gram/liter level of both strontium-90 and cesium-137.” (emphasis added)
While applicant pointed to Specification, [0047] in remarks field 7/7/2025, wherein Specification [0047] discloses,
“…Indeed, the waste stream may comprise a gram/liter level of uranium that is at least 500 times greater than a gram/liter level of both strontium-90 and cesium-137, for example, at least 750 times greater, at least 1000 times greater, at least 1250 times greater, at least 1500 times greater, at least 2000 times greater, or a multiplier in a range having any two of these values as endpoints. In some embodiments, the initial waste stream may comprise a gram/liter level of uranium that is at least 500 times greater than a gram/liter level of any individual of the following radionuclides, barium, cerium, lanthanum, molybdenum, neodymium, palladium, praseodymium, rubidium, rhodium, ruthenium, samarium, yttrium, and zirconium, for example, at least 750 times greater, at least 1000 times greater, at least 1250 times greater, at least 1500 times greater, at least 2000 times greater, or a multiplier in a range having any two of these values as endpoints...”
There is no support for “wherein an amount of uranium present in the waste stream is greater than an amount of the first target radionuclide and the second target radionuclide combined”, which encompasses any amount of uranium present in the waste stream is greater than an amount of any first target radionuclide and any second target radionuclide combined, as presently claimed.
Further, while there is support for “wherein the first target radionuclide comprises strontium-90 and the second target radionuclide comprises cesium-137” in original claim 12 and Specification [0016], there is no support for an amount of uranium present in the waste stream is greater than an amount of the first target radionuclide and the second target radionuclide combined, and the waste stream in the upstream segment of the main waste pathway comprises a gram/liter level of uranium that is at least 500 times greater than a gram/liter level of both strontium-90 and cesium-137, in combination, as presently claimed.
Regarding dependent claims 10-16 and 18-20, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 10 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
It is advised to delete “wherein an amount of uranium present in the waste stream is greater than an amount of the first target radionuclide and the second target radionuclide combined, and” in claim 10 to overcome the new matter rejections set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-29 are allowable over the “closest” prior art Vijayan et al. (US 5366634)
(Vijayan) for reasons set forth.
Regarding claim 21, Vijayan discloses a first holding tank TK-4 where calcium and radioactive strontium are
precipitated with reagents such as sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) from a conditioned feed stream.
Vijayan further discloses, following this the precipitated solids are filtered away from the
stream by second-stage microfiltration MF-2 and the filtrate is delivered to the adsorption/ion
exchange tank TK-5 to remove any residual activity and organic contaminants by using TSM-
140 D and TSM-140 H zeolites in TK-5 to adsorb cesium.
Vijayan further discloses the removal of contaminants including uranium, wherein the
contaminants amenable to treatment are from a few mg/L to hundreds of mg/L.
However, Vijayan does not disclose or suggest the waste stream in the upstream segment of the main waste pathway comprises 1 gram/liter of uranium or greater, as presently claimed.
Further, the references cited in the IDS filed 5/292026 have been considered, and would not meet the present claims
Given claims 22-29 includes all the limitations of the allowable claim 21, claims 22-29 would also be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Coris Fung whose telephone number is (571)270-5713. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m..
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 director, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571)272-2450. 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.
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights