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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-17, 19-22, 24, and 27 remain pending. Applicant’s election of Group II, Claims 11-17, 19-22, and 24 in the reply filed on 29 July 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-6, 9, and 27 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the limitation “absorptive zone” in claim 11, the Examiner acknowledges and adopts Applicant’s definition of this term within Paragraph [0067] of the Specification.
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.
Claims 15, 17, 19, and 24 are 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.
With respect to claim 15, the limitation “strong carbon-halogen bond” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong carbon-halogen bond” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “strong carbon-halogen bond” implies that there are carbon-halogen bonds that Applicant does not wish to claim; therefore, the scope is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the limitation to be met by perfluoro alkyl and polyfluoroalkyl compounds, which are examples of compounds having carbon-halogen bonds provided by Applicant in Paragraph [0066] of the Specification.
Claims 17 and 19 contain the trademark/trade names Amberlite IRA910, Amberlite IRA67, Amberlite IRA 400, Pluronic F-127, Tween 80, and HEC-10. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the recited ion exchange resins and surfactants, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
With respect to claim 24, the limitation “water-soluble polymer” lacks antecedent basis in the claim language.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17, 19-22, and 24 are allowed pending resolution of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, as none of the prior art teaches or suggests the method of isolating contaminants as recited in claim 11.
The Examiner acknowledges the following references which are relevant to the claimed invention, but which fall short of disclosing the same:
Redwine et al. (U. S. Patent # 6210078) teaches a method of removing heavy metal contaminants including lead, zinc, and arsenic (see column 8, lines 29-33) in situ from soil containing the contaminant from an adsorptive zone that comprises both the soil and the anion exchange vessel 22 with an aqueous composition comprising a chelant (see Column 10, lines 6-46), recovered contaminant-chelate complex, and an ion exchange resin (see Fig. 3; Column 10, line 66 through Column 12, line 19), and wherein the decontaminated mixture is reintroduced into the soil to until the contaminant is substantially removed from the soil (Column 12, lines 12-19). Chelate (see Column 10, lines 6-46) is introduced through the soil to remove the contaminant, producing a contaminant-chelate complex, which is removed from the soil and fed into the anion exchange vessel 22.
Redwine teaches an additional embodiment where the contaminant-chelate complex can be chemically destroyed via ozone treatment, followed by addition of NaOH (a “buffer component” according to claim 21) to achieve a pH of 6.24, followed by addition of an iron salt to flocculate solids comprising iron and arsenic (see Example 3); however, this embodiment (described in Column 6, line 54 through Column 8, line 18) is distinct from the chelate/ion exchange embodiments discussed in Column 10, line 66 through Column 12, line 19).
Redwine does not teach that the aqueous composition comprises a water soluble surfactant having a molecular weight as claimed.
Redwine also does not teach the ion exchange resin particle size. Redwine teaches that when the contaminant is arsenic according to a preferred embodiment, the ion exchange comprises an anionic exchange resin (Column 12, lines 9-11), and teaches that the anion exchange resins include Amberlite IRA910 C1 and Amberlite IRA67 C1 (Column 11, lines 36-62), among 50 other choices. Amberlite IRA910 C1 and Amberlite IRA67 C1 would appear to meet the limitations of claim 17; however, the Examiner notes that these are trade names, which do not indicate any particular unchanging product.
Khodadoust et al. (Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2005, B117, 15-24) teaches a process of removing phenanthrene, lead, and zinc (“chemical contaminants”) from a contaminated soil (“adsorptive zone”), comprising sequential addition of an aqueous solution of EDTA and Tween 80 or sequential addition of a co-solvent solution of Tween 80, followed by an aqueous solution of citric acid (see Abstract; Sections 2.1-2.3; Fig. 6); however, Khodadoust does not teach a surfactant having the recited molecular weight. Tween 80 has a molecular weight of 1,310 (see Khodadoust: Table 4), which is substantially below the claimed range of “about 7,500 to about 15,000”. Additionally, Khodadoust teaches a pH of 6.9 (see Table 1), but does not teach a buffer component, and is silent with respect to an ion exchange resin as claimed.
Torres et al. (Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 2012, 37-39, 30-36) teaches removal of As, Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn from a soil using surfactant-enhanced soil washing (see Abstract; Sections 2.3), wherein the surfactants include those listed in Table 4; however, no molecular weights for these surfactants are taught, which are mostly represented in trade name format. Torres also does not teach an ion exchange resin or buffer component as required by claim 11.
Shah et al. (Chemical Reviews, 2016, 116, 6042-6074) teaches surfactant-based soil and wastewater treatments for removal of toxic metals and organometallics (see Abstract; Sections 2.1), wherein the surfactants include those listed in Table 2 (Tween 80 included, having a molecular weight of 1,310 as discussed in the above discussion of the Khodadoust reference); however, these surfactants are small organic molecules (see for example Page 6044: paragraph above Table 2 and Table 2, wherein BW = coamydopropylbetaine, having a molecular weight of 342.3 g/mol, and CAS = cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine, having a molecular weight of 422.6 g/mol). Shah teaches away from ion exchange (see Conclusions Paragraph on Page 6066).
Shah mentions using a citric acid buffer to enhance metal removal efficiency (see Page 6057: left column, last sentence of top paragraph: citing Slizovskiy et al. (Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2011, 30, 112-123); however, Slizovskiy teaches a pH of 3.6 for metal removal, a pH which is below the claimed range, in combination with the following small molecule surfactants: cationic 1‐dodecylpyridinium chloride (DPC) and nonionic oleyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (see Abstract).
Hadia Anwar “Mohammed Ameen" Inaya (M. Sc. Thesis, 2008, Pages 1-51) teaches aqueous surfactant solutions including Pluronic F127 (recited in claim 19) used for surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation, wherein surfactants are injected with an electrolyte to increase solubility of nonaqueous phase liquids (see Abstract on Page 7); but is silent with respect to an ion exchange resin.
Leser et al. (U.S. Patent # 6030467) teaches an aqueous surfactant solution to remove/wash motor fuel antiknock compound (MFAC) contaminants from equipment, sludge, scale, and soil (Abstract; Column 1, lines 5-11), wherein the surfactants used are small molecule sorbitan derivatives (see Table 1), which have a molecular weight below the claimed range; additionally, Leser is silent with respect to an ion exchange resin and buffer component.
Douglas et al. (U.S. Patent # 6350383) teaches a method of removing oxyanions (see Column 1, line 62 through Column 2, line 5) from sediments (“adsorption zone”) via addition of modified cation exchange clays, including zeolites (see Abstract; Column 1, lines 4-6; Column 2, lines 55-65). Douglas teaches that solid or dissolved salts including calcium chloride could be applied in combination with lanthanum salts in the disclosed remediation method, and teaches binding of phosphorus over a pH range of 6-10 or 5-11 (Column 8, lines 9-19). Douglas does not teach an ion exchange resin having the recited particle size, and is silent with respect to the recited water-soluble surfactant.
Phillips et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2019/0176101, cited in the ISR and Written Opinion of the corresponding PCT application), in which is disclosed a separation of a substance from groundwater present in a body of ground (see Abstract; Paragraphs [0013]), wherein a froth layer comprising PFAS contaminants removed from a well is treated via ion exchange (see Paragraphs [0027, 0028, 0044, 0093, 0095]). Phillips is silent with respect to the particle size of the ion exchange resin, does not teach a water-soluble surfactant, and does not specifically teach the recited buffer component.
Rawden et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0332627, cited in the ISR and Written Opinion of the corresponding PCT application), in which is disclosed a method of delivering a formulation comprising an ion exchange resin having a size ranging from 0.05 microns to 5mm and an agricultural active ingredient to an agricultural surface (see Abstract; Paragraph [0007]), wherein the agricultural active ingredient comprises a pesticide or herbicide (see Paragraphs [0007, 0009]). Rawden teaches that buffers, surfactants, and viscosity modifiers can be added to the formulation (Paragraphs [0031, 0088, 0089]), with specific examples of Tween 80 (having a molecular weight of 1,310 as discussed above regarding the Khodadoust reference) and Pluronic L64 as the surfactants (see Paragraphs [0060, 0061, 0114]), wherein Pluronic L64 has a molecular weight of 2,900 g/mol (see Page 3: Properties section of Millipore Sigma), which is below the recited surfactant molecular weight. Rawden also does not teach isolating chemical contaminants at all, and does not teach the recited pH range for the formulation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 11 November 2025