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 without traverse of Group II, claims 10-20 in the reply filed on 07/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 10-12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan et al. (US 5366634) (Vijayan).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Vijayan discloses a first holding tank TK-4 where calcium and radioactive strontium (i.e., a first target radionuclide) are precipitated with reagents such as sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) (i.e., an alkaline solution) from a conditioned feed stream (i.e., directing a waste stream from an upstream segment of a main pathway into a precipitation tank; directing an alkaline solution into the precipitation tank to induce precipitation of a first target radionuclide) (Vijayan, Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 64-67).
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 (i.e., a second target radionuclide; directing the waste stream from the precipitation tank into an adsorption tank; adsorbing a second target radionuclide from the precipitation tank onto an ion exchange resin housed in the adsorption column; particle filtration unit positioned between and fluidly coupled to the precipitation tank and the adsorption tank) (Vijayan, Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 2-5; Col. 7, lines 43-47).
Further, Vijayan teaches the removal of contaminants including uranium (Vijayan, Abstract), wherein the contaminants amenable to treatment are from a few mg/L to hundreds of mg/L (Vijayan, Col. 1, lines 52-53). Therefore, while Vijayan does not explicitly teach the amount of uranium present in the waste stream is greater than an amount of the first target radionuclide, i.e., strontium-90, and the second target radionuclide, i.e., cesium-137, combined, Vijayan does not limit the amount of contaminants including uranium, and therefore the amount of uranium is from a few mg/L to hundreds of mg/L, as is the amount of strontium and cesium, and therefore the amount of uranium overlaps with the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, Vijayan discloses precipitating calcium and radioactive strontium (i.e., strontium-90; a first target radionuclide) in the first holding tank TK-4 (Vijayan, Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 64-67) and adsorbing cesium (i.e., cesium-137, a second target nucleotide) on TSM-140 D and TSM-140 H in the adsorption/ion exchange tank TK-5 (Vijayan, Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 4-5; Col. 7, lines 43-47).
Regarding claim 14, Vijayan discloses using sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) to precipitate calcium and radioactive strontium (i.e., the alkaline solution comprises a Na2CO3 solution) (Vijayan, Col. 4, 64-67).
Regarding claim 18, Vijayan discloses precipitating calcium and radioactive strontium (i.e., strontium; a first target radionuclide) in the first holding tank TK-4 (Vijayan, Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 64-67) and adsorbing cesium (i.e., a second target nucleotide) on TSM-140 D and TSM-140 H in the adsorption/ion exchange tank TK-5 (Vijayan, Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 4-5; Col. 7, lines 43-47).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan et al. (US 5366634) (Vijayan) in view of Lane A. Bray (US 6066302) (Bray).
Regarding claim 13, Vijayan teaches the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. However, Vijayan does not explicitly teach the waste stream in the upstream segment of the main waste pathway comprises a pH of from 0 to 3 and the waste stream entering the adsorption column comprises a pH of from 7 to 10.
With respect to the difference, Bray teaches a method of producing and purifying Cs-131 comprising the steps of dissolving irradiated Ba in an acid, precipitating the Ba, separating the Cs-131 using an ion exchange media, and eluting the Cs-131 from the ion exchanger to recover the purified Cs-131 (Bray, Abstract).
Bray further teaching a simulated waste stream of neutron-irradiated BaCO3 powder, comprised of natural or enriched Ba, Ba-131, and Cs-131 formed by radioactive decay of Ba-131, dissolved in acetic acid (e.g., pH ≤ 3) (i.e., the upstream segment of the main waste pathway comprises a pH of from 0 to 3) (Bray, Col. 3, lines 1-5). A saturated solution of sodium carbonate is then added to the simulated waste stream to adjust the pH of the solution to a value preferably between about 7 and 10 to precipitate the barium (i.e., the waste stream entering the adsorption column comprises a pH of from 7 to 10) (Bray, Col. 2, lines 24-27).
Bray expressly teaching the use of acetic acid was selected to obtain the maximum salt dissolution per unit volume of solution (Bray, Col. 3, lines 11-13) and sodium carbonate is added to adjust the pH to precipitate the Ba(II) by adjusting the pH to a value preferably within the range of about 7 and 10 because Cs(I) will stay in solution at this pH range (Bray, Col. 3, lines 24-27).
In light of the motivation of using the acetic acid taught by Bray, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a waste stream in the upstream segment have a pH of ≤ 3 and the waste stream entering the adsorption column have a pH of from 7 to 10 in Vijayan, in order to obtain the maximum salt dissolution per unit volume in the upstream segment waste stream and to keep cesium in solution after precipitation and before adsorption in Vijayan, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Denton et al. (US 8148594 B2) (Denton).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Vijayan teaches the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. Vijayan teaches the concentrate streams from the microfiltration units are routed dewatering systems comprising filter press FP-1 and FP-2 (i.e., column effluent tanks) and/or a low temperature evaporation unit for further volume reduction (Vijayan, Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 18-22).
Vijayan further teaching the sludge generated from the dewatering step by the filter presses is the sole residue of the process and is directed into a drum which then is sent for solidification and disposal or thermal destruction (i.e., directing the waste stream from the adsorption column to a column effluent tank; directing the treated waste from the column effluent tank into a waste tank and thereafter solidifying the treated waste) (Vijayan, Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 22-27).
However, Vijayan does not explicitly teach a treated waste comprising 0.04 curies per cubic meter or less of strontium-90 and 1 curie per cubic meter or less of cesium-137 flowing from the adsorption column to the column effluent tank.
With respect to the difference, Denton teaches a process and apparatus for processing waste water from nuclear power reactors and other sources of water contaminated with radionuclides and other interfering materials and/or contaminates (Denton, Col. 1, lines 8-11).
Denton further teaching their apparatus reduces the number of shipments of Class B and C waste and also Class A by removing driver contaminants while leaving the other contaminants for subsequent removal by demineralizer material (Denton, Abstract; Col.2, lines 35-37). Further teaching the potential drivers that result in wastes being more likely classified as Class B or C rather than Class A are Cs-131, Te-99, Sr-90, and I-129 (Denton, Col. 6, lines 46-49) and listing the Class A levels of the radionuclides found in Low-Level Radioactive Waste, which lists 90Sr (i.e., Sr-90) at 0.04 Ci/m3 and 137Cs (i.e., Cs-137) at 1 Ci/m3 (Denton, Table I).
Denton expressly teaching the disposal fees for Class B and C wastes are sufficiently higher than for Class A waste and by processing Class B and C wastes to bring them to Class A levels minimizes both the cost of waste disposal and the overall volume of radioactive waste (Denton, Col. 3, lines 45-51; Col. 4, lines 8-11).
In light of the motivation of using the method and apparatus to process the waste stream taught by Denton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a waste stream with 0.04 Ci/m3 or less of Sr-90 and 1 Ci/m3 or less of Cs-137 present after the precipitation of Sr-90 and the adsorption of Cs-137 steps before flowing into the filter press FP-2 of Vijayan, in order to reduce the cost of the final waste disposal in Vijayan, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Development of a Carousel Ion-Exchange Process for Removal of Cesium-137 from Alkaline Nuclear Waste (Ernest).
Regarding claim 20, Vijayan teaches the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. Vijayan teaches adsorbing cesium (i.e., cesium-137) on TSM-140 D and TSM-140 H in the adsorption/ion exchange tank TK-5 (Vijayan, Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 4-5; Col. 7, lines 43-47).
However, Vijayan does not explicitly teach the use of ion exchange resin beads that have an average diameter in a range of from 400 µm to 800 µm within the adsorption/ion exchange tank TK-5.
With respect to the difference, Ernest teaches a systematic model-based approach for the development of an efficient carousel ion-exchange process for the selective removal of radioactive 137Cs+ from alkaline nuclear waste solutions (Ernest, Abstract).
Ernest further teaching the use of resorcinol-formaldehyde resin confined in columns (i.e., adsorption column) comprising of granular resin particles with irregular shape (i.e., ion exchange resin beads) and a general particle size distribution (i.e., average diameter) of 30–60 mesh (250–550 µm) (Ernest, Figure 1; Preparation of the R-F Resin).
Ernest expressly teaching the use of a resorcinol-formaldehyde resin for the selective removal of 137Cs+ from alkaline supernates because it shows a high selectivity for cesium in high salt concentrations and is relatively stable in alkaline supernates (pH = 11-14) and is radiolytically stable. Further teaching the adsorbed cesium can be easily eluted using acid to remove all the loaded ions, producing a low volume high concentrated cesium waste stream (Ernest, The Resorcinol-Formaldehyde Resin).
In light of the motivation of using of resorcinol-formaldehyde resin for the selective removal of 137Cs+ from alkaline supernates taught by Ernest, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use resorcinol-formaldehyde resin beads of size 30–60 mesh within the adsorption/ion exchange tank TK-5 of Vijayan, in order to obtain high selectivity for 137Cs+ adsorption with high resin stability in the radionuclide waste stream containing high salt concentrations in Vijayan, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 17, while Vijayan teaches the limitations of claim 10, Vijayan does not disclose or suggest 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, as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 19, while Vijayan teaches the limitations of claim 10, 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.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s addition of copies of foreign references and amendments to the specification, the previous IDS and specification objections are withdrawn from the record.
Applicant primarily argues:
“However, Vijayan does not explicitly or inherently disclose that the wastewater stream to be treated by its process can or should have "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," as recited in amended claim 10. Indeed, although Vijayan discloses that uranium may be one of the contaminants in its wastewater that is to be removed, Vijayan does not disclose the amount of uranium present in the wastewater to be treated.”
Remarks, p. 9
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is the examiner’s position that while Vijayan does not explicitly teach the amount of uranium present is greater than an amount of the first target radionuclide and the second target radionuclide combined, Vijayan does teach the contaminants amenable to treatment are from a few mg/L to hundreds of mg/L (Vijayan, Col. 1, lines 52-53). Therefore, Vijayan does not limit the amount of contaminants including uranium, and therefore the amount of uranium is from a few mg/L to hundreds of mg/L, as is the amount of strontium and cesium, and therefore the amount of uranium overlaps with the range of the presently claimed.
Applicant further argues:
“Vijayan is directed to "a generic process that uses sequential cross-flow microfiltration to separate size-enlarged contaminant ions from waste solutions. The size enlargement is carried out sequentially by precipitation, and ion exchange and adsorption by direct addition of powdered materials." Vijayan, col. 3, lines 29-34. Moreover, the objective of Vijayan is "to remove three classes of contaminants, namely heavy metals, radionuclides and organics," from an aqueous waste solution, such as contaminated groundwater. See id. at col. 3, lines 35-36. Vijayan is not directed to, or concerned with, separating different radionuclides (i.e., a first target radionuclide and a second target radionuclide) from an aqueous solution that comprises a significant amount of uranium (a third radionuclide), as recited in amended claim 10. Rather, Vijayan is merely directed to removing all possible contaminants from an aqueous solution (i.e., groundwater).
In contrast, the present claims are directed to methods for "removal of target waste radionuclides from a waste stream formed during a medical isotope production process .... [where] [t]he waste stream includes multiple radionuclides ...." Specification, paragraph [0032]. There is no disclosure or teaching in Vijayan that its processes can or should be used to separate two target radionuclides from a waste stream with a high concentration of uranium, as recited in amended claim 10. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully asserts that it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the process disclosed in Vijayan to treat a waste stream having "an amount of uranium present ... [that] is greater than an amount of the first target radionuclide and the second target radionuclide combined," as recited in amended claim 10.”
Remarks, p. 9-10
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is the examiner’s position that as Vijayan teaches removal of multiple radionuclides, and wherein the contaminants include uranium (Vijayan, Abstract), it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Vijayan to treat a waste stream having an amount of uranium present that is greater than an amount if the first target radionuclide and the second target radionuclide combined.
Applicant further argues:
“Bray, Denton, and Ernest-individually or in any combination-do not address, nor are they applied to address, the above deficiencies of Vijayan as to amended claim 10. In particular, Bray is applied as allegedly disclosing, "[A] method of producing and purifying Cs-131 comprising the steps of dissolving irradiated Ba in an acid, precipitating the Ba, separating the Cs- 131 using an ion exchange media, and eluting the Cs-131 from the ion exchanger to recover the purified Cs-131 ...." Office Action, pp. 9-10 (citing Bray, Abstract). Denton is applied as allegedly disclosing, "[A] process and apparatus for processing wastewater from nuclear power reactors and other sources of water contaminated with radionuclides and other interfering materials and/or contaminates ...." Id. at p. 11 (citing Denton, col. 1, lines 8-11). Ernest is applied as allegedly disclosing, "[A] systematic model-based approach for the development of an efficient carousel ion-exchange process for the selective removal of radioactive 137Cs* from alkaline nuclear waste solutions ...." Id. at p. 13 (citing Ernest, Abstract). Accordingly, none of Bray, Denton, or Ernest address the above deficiencies of Vijayan as to claim 10; namely, none of Bray, Denton, or Ernest, disclose, teach, or provide any reason or rationale for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have known to use the process disclosed in Vijayan to treat a waste stream having "an amount of uranium present ... [that] is greater than an amount of the first target radionuclide and the second target radionuclide combined," as recited in amended claim 10 with any reasonable expectation of success.”
Remarks, p. 10-11
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Bray, Denton, and Ernest do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Bray, Denton, and Ernest are used as teaching references, namely:
to teach the waste stream in the upstream segment of the main waste pathway comprises a pH of from 0 to 3 and the waste stream entering the adsorption column comprises a pH of from 7 to 10, in order to obtain the maximum salt dissolution per unit volume in the upstream segment waste stream and to keep cesium in solution after precipitation and before adsorption (Bray);
to teach a treated waste comprising 0.04 curies per cubic meter or less of strontium-90 and 1 curie per cubic meter or less of cesium-137 flowing from the adsorption column to the column effluent tank, in order to reduce the cost of the final waste disposal (Denton); and
to teach the use of ion exchange resin beads that have an average diameter in a range of from 400 μm to 800 μm within the adsorption/ion exchange tank TK-5, in order to obtain high selectivity for 137Cs+ adsorption with high resin stability in the radionuclide waste stream containing high salt concentrations (Ernest),
and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather these references teach certain concepts, and in combination with the primary reference, disclose the presently claimed invention.
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.
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights