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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 07/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1,8-12, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Livingston (US 10844285).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 22, Livingston discloses a treatment process that involves adding feedstock, containing PFAS, into a heated vessel (Livingston [C2 L55-60]). In Example 2, Livingston discloses the process of heating the feedstock at a temperature of 950°F for 20 minutes (Livingston C8 L45-60]). Using this data, the temperature °F *minutes would be 19000 °F*minutes, which would be above 2000 °F*minutes. Livingston further discloses that the heating process is primarily done via fuel fired burners which generate hot combustion gases to surround the outer surface of the reactor (Livingston [C3 L9-12]) with the reactor containing external fins and rings with internal pins (Livingston [C6 31-35]) to affect efficient heating. The presence of these components allows for effective conductive heating of the feedstock. Even though the materials would not be heated to 500°F instantaneously, the amount of time that the feedstock would be below 500°F would be insignificant to the amount of time the temperature of the material would be above 500°F because of the length of the residence time and the efficient heating of the material as disclosed in Livingston. Furthermore, the prior art notes that despite the use of an air lock that the drum contains less than 10% of atmospheric in the system (Livingston [C6 L51-55]). This means that despite attempts to keep atmospheric air out, air would still be received into the system.
Therefore, this disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the remediation process to comprise of: receiving a feed stream comprising material contaminated with a per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) compound; determining heating conditions for reducing the PFAS compound present in the material below a selected threshold level, wherein heating conditions are determined based on a composition of the feed stream; introducing the material into an a vessel; and heating the material in the vessel based on the determined heating conditions, wherein the determined heating conditions include heating the material for at least 2000 degree F*minutes above 5000 F, wherein degree F*minutes above 5000 F is a measure of the area under the curve of a plot of the temperature of the material above 5000 F and the time of the material in the vessel at temperatures above 5000 F, wherein atmospheric air is received into the vessel while heating the material.
Regarding claim 8, Livingston discloses the reactor heating of the vessel is done using
hot combustion gas surrounding a rotating thermal reactor (Livingston [C3 L20]). As the reactor
is rotating, the heat is applied to the vessel circumferentially Therefore, the disclosure would fulfill the limitations set by the instant claim requiring the vessel to be heated uniformly and
circumferentially.
Regarding claim 9, Livingston discloses that elements of the feedstock are mixed within the shell of the reactor (Livingston [C3 L37-40]), contacts the shell. This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the mixing of the material within the vessel to maintain close contact between the material and the interior surface of the vessel.
Regarding claim 10, Livingston discloses other methods of heating such as electrical induction (Livingston [C9 L14-16]). This disclosure fulfils the limitation set by the instant claim requiring the process utilize inductive heating to the vessel.
Regarding claim 11, Livingston does not disclose the amount of PFAS exiting the vessel for every kilogram of material. However, due the similarities in the processing of PFAS contaminated materials such as, adding feedstock containing PFAS into a heated vessel (Livingston [C2 L55-60]), and heating the vessel for between 8-25 minutes (Livingston [C3 L20]) at temperatures up to 1400°F( Livingston [C2 L16]), the conditions in the prior art would be expected to product the same result of a product containing less than 1 microgram PFAS per kilogram of material. Furthermore, the prior art disclosed that the method of heating can remove at least 99% of PFAS by weight (Livingston [C2 L65-67]). Therefore, the disclosure in the prior art meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the material output would contain less than 1 microgram of PFAS compound per kilogram of material.
Regarding claim 12, Livingston discloses that the method of heating can remove at least 99% of PFAS by weight (Livingston [C2 L65-67]). This disclosure fulfills the limitation set in the instant claim requiring the output to PFAS reduction being at least 95%
Regarding claim 16, Livingston discloses a mass-energy balance that illustrates the infeed to a thermal reactor that has its temperature increased prior to entering the reactor (Livingston [C7 Step H]). This disclosure would fulfill the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the material to be preheated and slightly volatized before entering the vessel.
Regarding claim 17, Livingston discloses multiple blends of feedstocks contaminated with PFAS can be added into a feed stream prior to being introduced into the vessel (Livingston [C9 L6-9]). This disclosure fulfills the limitations set by the instant claim requiring the feedstock to have one or more additive streams, one or more liquid or solid streams from other parts of the process, or combinations thereof with the material contaminated with PFAS in the feed stream, prior to introducing the material into the vessel.
Regarding claim 18, Livingston discloses in an example that the material was sent to a commercial laboratory to determine the type of PFAS compounds present in Livingston [C8 L54-56]). This disclosure fulfils the limitation set in the instant claim requiring the chemical type of PFAS in the material to be determined.
Regarding claim 19, Livingston discloses changes in moisture content of the feedstock which initially have a moisture content up to about 20% (Livingston [C6 L17-20]). This disclosure fulfils the limitation set in the instant claim requiring a change in the moisture of a feed stream.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2,6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston (US 10844285).
Regarding claim 2, Livingston discloses heating the feedstock to a temperature of 300°F to 1400°F (Livingston [C3 L13-16]).While the temperature within the vessel is maintained between 300-1400°F (Livingston [C6 L28-30]), the temperature of the vessel would be the same or greater than the desired temperature of the feedstock. Therefore, the range disclosed overlaps with the range in the instant claim, leading to a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a vessel temperature to successfully complete the remediation process.
Regarding claim 6, Livingston discloses the residence time of the feedstock in the vessel to be between 8-25 minutes (Livingston [C3 L20]) at temperatures between 300°F to 1400°F or 750 to 1100°F (Livingston [C3 L13-16]). While the prior art does not mention the value of 2000-degree F*minutes above 500°F, the claimed temperature and residence time overlap with the ranges provided in the instant claim. This leads to a prima facie case. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a proper temperature and residence time to remove all PFAS chemicals and result in a degree F*minutes in the range claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Livingston discloses the residence time of the feedstock in the vessel to be between 8-25 minutes (Livingston [C3 L20]) at temperatures between 750 to 1100°F (Livingston [C3 L16]). Furthermore, based off example 2 in the prior art, if the material were heated instantaneously, the required value would reach 19000 °F*minutes. Due to the efficient heating disclosed by the prior art, the time required for the material to reach 500°F would be negligible compared to time the material is above 500°F. Therefore, the disclosure would meet the limitations of the instant claim requiring the material in the vessel be maintains for at least 2500-degree F*minutes above 500°F.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston (US 10844285 B1), and further in view of FHA "Chapter 10. Bench-Scale Testing and Field Validation Program - Federal Highway Administration Design Manual: Deep Mixing for Embankment and Foundation Support, October 2013 - FHWA-HRT-13-046", which will be referred to as FHA.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Livingston does not disclose the method of determining how the method of, determining a minimum degree F*minutes above 500°. However, according to the EPA, a bench test is used to measure the properties of soil from water content, organic content and establish baseline treatment for the soil (HPA [10.21]). The use of a bench test would also provide information regarding the temperature that can be applied to a contaminated material. In the case of Livingston, the bench test can be utilized to determine the appropriate amount of heat applied to remediate the PFAS material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the FHA and Livingston, that utilizing a bench text can give information to determine a minimum degree F*minutes above 500°, necessary to process the material.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston (US 10844285 B1), and further in view of Ball (20180319685 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Livingston does not disclose a process of separating vapors containing PFAS or partially decomposed PFAS hydrocarbons from the material into an impure vapor stream and producing a purified solids stream. However, Ball discloses a process that includes a waste steam in the apparatus (Ball [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ball and Livingston to provide separate streams for a waste product and a pure product to prevent contamination upon exiting the reactor/vessel.
Regarding claim 15, Livingston does not disclose negative pressure being applied to a vessel. However, Ball discloses a method of controlling the pressure or vacuum of the vessel to enhance the removal of contaminants (Ball [0023]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Livingston and Ball to utilize a 'negative' pressure to improve the removal process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Livingston teaches a treatment process that involves adding feedstock, containing PFAS, into a heated vessel (Livingston [C2 L55-60]), Ball teaches a process that includes a waste steam in the apparatus (Ball [0055]). The HPA teaches that a bench test is used to measure the properties of soil from water content, organic content and establish baseline treatment for the soil (HPA [10.21]).
Regarding claim 21 while Livingston teaches that despite the use of an airlock, the drum will receive atmospheric air with the air content being less than 10% of the atmosphere within the system (Livingston [C6 L51-55]). The prior art does not teach nor suggest that the atmospheric air is heated before it is received into the system. Therefore, this claim is considered novel and nonobvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant's Remarks, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-19, and 21-22 under 35 USC 112(b) 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 Livingston (US 10844285 B1), FHA "Chapter 10. Bench-Scale Testing and Field Validation Program - Federal Highway Administration Design Manual: Deep Mixing for Embankment and Foundation Support, October 2013 - FHWA-HRT-13-046"and Ball (20180319685 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 EST.
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 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights