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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3,5,7,11-12,15,19-20,23,25-26,32-35,37-38 and 40 remain pending in the application. Claims 4, 6, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, 21-22, 24, 27-31, 36, and 39 are previously cancelled. Claims 19-20,23,25-26,32-35,37-38 and 40 are previously withdrawn. Claims 1-3,5,7,11-12 and 15 are examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to claim 3 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment. The rejection of claims 2-3, 5, 7, 11-12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn based upon dependency of all of the limitations of claim 1.
The rejection of claims 1-3,5,7,11-12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 05/01/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1-3,5,7,11-12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taj in view of Strathmann et al., have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pp. 7-10) that neither Taj nor Strathmann teaches or suggests an apparatus having an analyzer with an inlet connected to the outlet of the collection zone. Although Strathmann discloses analyzing halogen ions following hydrothermal treatment, Applicant contends that the analysis is performed only after the reactor contents are removed and collected for separate laboratory testing. Accordingly, Applicant asserts that Strathmann teaches post-process validation rather than an integrated SCWO treatment system including an analyzer connected downstream of the collection zone as required by claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Taj recognizes that salt precipitation at the “exit of the reactor” causes outlet tubing clogging and identifies Cl as a major component of the precipitated deposits (p. 63, col. 2, para. 1). Taj already analyzes the contents of the precipitates for chlorine at the exit of the reactor that is necessarily generated from a sample, and both Taj and Strathmann are directed to hydrothermal processing of halogen containing compounds under supercritical conditions. Since the operational problem occurs at the reactor discharge, 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 connected the inlet of Strathmann’s known chloride ion analyzer to the outlet of Taj’s collection zone using routine plumbing because the discharged sample could be conveyed directly to the analyzer, thereby eliminating a separate manual transfer step and automating the analysis, (See MPEP 2144.04(III)). Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. The rejection of claims 2-3, 5, 7, 11-12, and 15 is maintained based upon dependency of all of the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant argues, (pp. 10-11) “the fact that Taj identifies problematic SWOC products that may be detrimental to the reactor does not provide motivation to modify its teaching to include an integrated analyzer”. Taj’s discussion of corrosion does not motivate modifying the SCWO system to include the claimed analyzer because Taj addresses corrosion through reactor materials, feed dilution, and operating conditions, not by measuring halogen ion concentration of the reactor products. “If it is a given that certain reactors will suffer from adverse corrosion effects, there is no need analyze the reactor products to determine the concentration of the one or more halogen ions”. The teachings of Taj therefore provide no motivation to incorporate the claimed analyzer.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Taj identifies salt precipitation and corrosion as two related principal operational challenges of SCWO systems and already analyzes salt precipitates at the exit of the reactor that cause outlet tubing clogging (p. 63, col. 2, para. 1). Taj analyzes the precipitates using ICP and identifies Cl as a major component, demonstrating that chloride species are operationally significant (Taj, p. 63, col. 2, para. 1). Salt precipitation effects corrosion as discussed in Taj’s statements that “at supercritical conditions, in the absence of salt precipitates, corrosion may actually be minimal,” “corrosion mode was pitting by chloride ion,” and “corrosion rates can be rapid when treating wastes containing halogens, such as chlorine” (p. 59, col. 2, ll. 16-17; p. 67, para. 4, ll. 8-9; p. 56, col. 1, ll. 14-15). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the accumulation of precipitates containing chloride ions at the exit of the reactor would increase the potential for corrosion of reactor components leading to “crevice corrosion” (p. 58, col. 2, last 2 ll.). Taj already analyzes the contents of the precipitates for chlorine at the exit of the reactor that is necessarily generated from a sample, and both Taj and Strathmann are directed to hydrothermal processing of halogen containing compounds under supercritical conditions. 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 connected Strathmann’s chloride ion analyzer to the exit of Taj’s reactor to determine chloride ion concentration, because it would automate monitoring of Taj’s process stream using routine process plumbing, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
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) in view of Strathmann et al. (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, ll.. 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.
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. 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 then identifies salt precipitation and corrosion as two related principal operational challenges of SCWO systems and already analyzes salt precipitates at the exit of the reactor that cause outlet tubing clogging (p. 63, col. 2, para. 1). Taj analyzes the precipitates using ICP and identifies Cl as a major component, demonstrating that chloride species are operationally significant (Taj, p. 63, col. 2, para. 1). Salt precipitation effects corrosion as discussed in Taj’s statements that “at supercritical conditions, in the absence of salt precipitates, corrosion may actually be minimal,” “corrosion mode was pitting by chloride ion,” and “corrosion rates can be rapid when treating wastes containing halogens, such as chlorine” (p. 59, col. 2, ll. 16-17; p. 67, para. 4, ll. 8-9; p. 56, col. 1, ll. 14-15). Since the operational problem occurs at the reactor discharge, 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 connected the inlet of Strathmann’s known chloride ion analyzer to the outlet of Taj’s collection zone using routine plumbing because it would have provided 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; and the discharged sample could be conveyed directly to the analyzer, thereby eliminating a separate manual transfer step and automating the analysis, (See MPEP 2144.04(III)). This involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, Modified 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; Taj, p. 62, col. 2, ll. 2-6).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Taj teaches 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, Modified Taj teaches 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, Modified Taj teaches 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, Modified Taj teaches 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, Modified Taj teaches 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, Modified Taj teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reactor is maintained at a temperature in a range of 500 °C to 750 °C (exposed to a highly chlorinated feed at 600°C; Taj, p. 60, col. 2, ll. 2-3) and at a pressure sufficient to maintain a supercritical phase of water (By capitalizing on the properties of water above its critical point (374°C and 22.4 MPa for pure water), supercritical water technology can potentially be exploited for both waste destruction and energy generation; Taj, Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
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
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights