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 of Group I, claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-12, 15 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 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Claims 19-20, 23, 25, 26, 32-35, 37, 38, and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 reads “one or more of second inlets”. Applicant may correct the phrase by omitting “of” to read “one or more second inlets”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 11-12, 15 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 6 recites “reaction zone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may correct this by replacing “reaction zone” with “reactor”.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 11-12, and 15 are rejected upon dependency of rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3 5, 7, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taj (“Supercritical water oxidation (Scwo) technology”; 2019) and McGinness (US 5384051 A), incorporated by reference, in view of Strathmann (US 20200155885 A1, EFD 2019-11-20).
Regarding claim 1, Taj teaches an apparatus ((Closed-Cycle SCWO Process); p. 56, col. 2, para. 3, ll. 7-8) for determining one or more halogen-containing ions in a sample (“Making the waste treatable in an “ordinary” supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) unit, i.e. remove halogens and dissolved salts,” wherein the halogens originate from “the [waste] feed or formed during reaction”; p. 64, col. 2, lls. 7-9; pp. 63-64, last and first line)(Taj teaches determining halogen ions in that it discloses the formation and presence of halide ions resulting from SCWO of halogenated compounds from the original waste sample; See also p. 67, col. 1, para. 3) comprising:
a reactor (“Transpiring-Wall supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) Reactor”; p. 57; col. 1, last para. ll. 2-3; See reaction chamber and transpiring well in the figure below from p. 57, col. 1 of Taj) having a first inlet (Waste injector 10) connected to the sample supply (Waste pump, wherein waste is the sample) and an outlet (See ending of the orange transpiring well before interfacing with green section), the reactor configured for contacting the sample in a volume of water under supercritical conditions (“(Closed-Cycle SCWO Process),” or supercritical water oxidation; p. 56, col. 2, para. 3, ll. 7-8) to form a product (hot reactor by products; p. 57, col.1, l. 1);
a collection zone (quencher cooler and separator; See dark and light green regions of the figure below) having an inlet connected to the outlet of the reaction zone (See green cone-shaped opening beginning at the transpiring well interface), and an outlet (See outlet 11), the collection zone configured for reducing the temperature of the product (cooling is achieved by directly mixing cooled liquid effluent with the hot reactor by products; p. 56-57; See dark green Quench Cooler of the figure below).
Taj fails to teach an analyzer having an inlet connected to the outlet of the collection zone, the analyzer configured to determine the concentration of the one or more halogen-containing ions in the sample.
However, Taj does recognize the ill-effects that halogen ions have on the reactors used in SCWO processes (See p. 67, col. 1, para. 3, ll. 1-5).
Strathmann teaches an analyzer configured to determine the concentration of the one or more halogen-containing ions in the sample (“Fluoride release from PFASs may be determined by ion selective electrode analysis,” and “Aqueous solutions may be then collected and analyzed for…chloride release from the chlorinated solvents (ion chromatography).; [0099][0091]).
Strathmann is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for analysis of halogen ions produced during SCWO using electrochemical and chromatographic techniques suitable for aqueous effluents. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the (SCWO) processing system taught by Taj by connecting the inlet of Strathmann’s chloride/fluoride-ion analyzer to the Brine & Solids Outlet 14 of Taj’s SCWO process that is connected to the outlet of the collection zone/separator (See Taj’s figure from p. 57 below). Taj recognizes that halogen-derived ions produced during SCWO are a primary operational concern. Taj states:
“One major problem in the supercritical water oxidation process is corrosion, because all metallic tubes in the process are exposed to high temperature and high pressure as well as severe corrosive species such as Cl−, F−, S2− and O2—" (p. 67, col. 1, para. 3, ll. 1-5).
Taj further explains that corrosion severity is directly tied to the presence and amount of halogen ions, noting that:
“The presence of Cl− when the pH of a solution is very low and the solution has excess oxygen causes active corrosion and metal loss by metal-chloride and oxygen chloride formation (p. 67, col. 1, para. 3, ll. 5-8).
Taj also teaches that the effects of these halogen ions are quantifiable, describing experiments in which:
“Weight change of chromized steels and untreated steels was measured, and the chemical state and composition of oxide films on stainless steel were investigated” (p. 67, col. 1, para. 3, last 4 lines).
These teachings establish that halogen ion concentration is a critical parameter governing corrosion and material degradation in SCWO systems. Taj further explains that halogen ions combine with cations to form salts that contribute to fouling and operational difficulty, noting issues associated with salt behavior and deposition during SCWO processing (p. 63, cols. 1-2).
However, while Taj recognizes that Cl- and F- are the causative species, Taj does not disclose direct analytical measurement of halogen ion concentration in the effluent. Instead, Taj relies on indirect indicators, such as corrosion weight loss and material degradation, to evaluate system performance.
Strathmann teaches direct analytical determination of halogen ion concentration, including chloride and fluoride ions, in aqueous effluent streams produced by supercritical or hydrothermal oxidation processes (See paragraphs [0099][0091]). By providing an analyzer configured to determine halogen ion concentration downstream of oxidation and cooling, Strathmann supplies a known analytical technique for quantifying the very species Taj identifies as problematic. Monitoring the concentration of these halogen ions would have been desirable for corrosion control, materials selection, system protection, and process optimization. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Taj to incorporate a halogen-ion analyzer on-line and downstream of Taj’s SCWO reactor and collection zone would have been a predictable use of known technology to measure known reaction products (Cl-, F-), without changing the principle of operation of the SCWO system (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, Taj teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sample is contacted with an oxidant (See oxidizer pump 7 that feeds into the inlet east of the waste injector which would naturally contact the waste/sample at the juncture as shown in the fig. above from Taj, p. 57, col. 1, ll. 4-7)(adjust the feed stream chemistry…by…altering the…oxidizing conditions; p. 62, col. 2, ll. 2-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Taj, p. 57, col. 1
Regarding claim 3, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reactor comprises one or more of second inlets, wherein the one or more of second inlets are connected to an oxidant supply (See oxidizer pump 7 connected to inlet line 9 and the inlet east of the waste injector in the fig. above from Taj), a water supply, or both.
Regarding claim 5, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the collection zone further comprises a cooling zone (Quench cooler; Taj, p. 57 fig. above) configured to reduce the temperature of the product (cooling is achieved by directly mixing cooled liquid effluent with the hot reactor by products; Taj, p. 56-57).
Regarding claim 7, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the collection zone further comprises a pressure regulator configured to reduce the pressure in the collection zone (Valve 12 of Taj, p. 57, col. 1 is positioned downstream of the reactor and separator in the collection zone which will naturally reduce the pressure in the collection zone when opened).
Regarding claim 11, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the collection zone further comprises a second inlet (See inlet 16, caustic pump, in figure on p. 57, col. 1 of Taj shown above), for introducing a solution serving as a pH buffer (The cooled liquid effluent can be treated with caustic and other additives to control corrosion, effluent pH, solids, and composition of all effluent streams; p. 57, col. 1, ll. 4-7) or a total ionic strength adjustment buffer (TISAB).
Regarding claim 12, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the analyzer comprises a detector for halogen ions including one or more of F-, Cl-, Br ,I-, or (“Fluoride release from PFASs may be determined by ion selective electrode analysis,” and “Aqueous solutions may be then collected and analyzed for…chloride release from the chlorinated solvents (ion chromatography); Strathmann [0099][0091]).
Regarding claim 15, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reactor is maintained at a pressure sufficient to maintain a supercritical phase of water (The preferable operational temperature and pressure are, therefore, near or somewhat in excess of the critical properties of water; McGinness, col. 6, lines 26-28).
Modified Taj fails to teach the reactor is maintained at a temperature in a range of 500 °C to 750 °C .
However, Modified Taj does teach the reactor is maintained at a temperature in a range of 450 °C to 750 °C (The reaction chamber of the invention preferably operates at temperatures between 450.degree.-700.degree. C; McGinness, col. 6, lines 23-25])(The preferable operational temperature and pressure are, therefore, near or somewhat in excess of the critical properties of water; McGinness, col. 6, lines 26-28). Because McGinness teaches operating near or above the critical point of water, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reconfigured the reactor taught by Taj (McGinness incorporated by reference) in view of Strathmann to maintain a temperature range of 500 °C to 750 °C. The claimed temperature range and the temperature range taught by McGinness are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (See MPEP 2144.05(I&II) since both ranges are in excess of the critical properties of water (~374°C)(McGinness, col. 6, lines 28-30). Both range intervals would have yielded the predictable result of improved system performance via fast reaction rates by optimizing the result-effective variable of the reactor’s operating temperature (McGinness, col. 6, lines 30-31).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (703)756-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. 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.
/V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SAMUEL P SIEFKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758