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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/26/25 has been entered.
Claim Status
The Claims are newly amended and therefore newly considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks first argue the following:
Alden teaches catalyzing the mixture by an enzyme, an alkaline compound (chemically) or thermally (by heat), with the thermal catalysis being carried out in situ through methods such as steam hydrolysis, electrical resistance heating, thermal conduction heating, or gas thermal heating.
The emphasis is on generating catalytic activity and heat within the subsurface environment after introducing the mixture into the environmental medium.
In contrast, the present disclosure describes using an aboveground heat source with a heat exchanger to heat a mixture of vegetable oil, emulsifier, and water to a defined temperature below boiling (about 90°C), and then delivering sufficient heated mixture into the subsurface to replace 25-100% of the pore volume in the target treatment zone (see paragraph [0086]).
Heating the mixture (composition) further increases the alcoholysis reaction rates. Based on temperature, the time needed for the transesterification of vegetable oil is from minutes to hours.
The composition for in-situ remediation of soil or aquifer without heating may require days to weeks. (Please See paragraph [0069]). For example, a temperature of 140°F (90°C) could produce 94% of the total yield in about 6 minutes versus a yield of 64% at 90°F (32°C). (Please See paragraph [0070]).
Applicant submits a declaration to demonstrate the positive effect of heating the mixture aboveground and then introducing the heated mixture into the environmental medium. Case Study 1 from the declaration compares a method comprising preheating above ground in accordance with aspects of the invention to heating in-situ according to Alden. As presented in the declaration, the aboveground preheating method not only overcomes the technical and operational limitations of traditional In Situ Thermal Remediation (ISTR) but also provides a distinct and non-obvious advantage by promoting hydrogen-yielding fermentation intermediates, accelerating contaminant reduction rates; and enabling Dehalococcoides mccartyi survival and activity under ultra-low
contaminant concentrations.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Applicant states that Alden heats in the subsurface and does not preheat prior to injection, but this is respectfully disputed. Alden, page 18, line 3 states that the composition is made and heated and then step c, introduces the composition into the soil (see page 18 para 1 or para. 53).
The declaration submitted on 9/26/25 is used to support the position that preheating the remediation composition improves the treatment process. However, as mentioned, Alden does not teach against this, but supports this understanding.
Next, the remarks argue the following on pages 8-9:
Further, pore volume replacement ensures uniform heating of the environmental medium. Replacing a defined fraction of pore volume ensures that the injected heated mixture directly contacts and permeates the environmental medium, producing more uniform heating than in situ thermal methods, which are subject to heterogeneity and limited radii of influence.
Furthermore, pore volume is a quantifiable parameter based on surface area, thickness, and porosity of the environmental medium to be treated. This allows for engineering control and reproducibility across projects. The present disclosure addresses the challenge of distributing heat uniformly in the subsurface (an issue well known in thermal remediation) by defining the injection strategy in terms of pore volume replacement. Delivering heated mixture to replace pore volume requires only an aboveground heater and conventional injection wells, avoiding the extensive infrastructure of in situ thermal remediation (ISTR) methods.
Examiner rightly concedes that Alden does not teach heating the mixture. He relies on EPA for this feature, and on Song for heat exchangers. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
None of the evidence cited will cure the deficiencies of Alden as Alden does not teach or suggest the critical feature of heating the mixture aboveground below a boiling point of the mixture before introducing into the environmental medium and replacing 25% to 100% of a total pore volume (Vpore) of the environmental medium with the heated mixture.
In view of this, the Applicant respectfully requests that the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn.
The remarks are respectfully disputed. Alden describes adding their composition to soil (see page 18, para. 1 or para. 53), which is added at an injection point either through a well or another means (para. 54) or by mechanically mixing the soil (para. 55). The mechanical mixing of soil with the remediation solution would therefore cause the same pore filling of a defined fraction of pores in the soil as the claims since the solution is mixed with the soil.
Similar this the process of Alden, the features in the specification of this application that describes this 25-100% pore volume filling, explains that the mixture is fed into the medium through use of “an injection point, an injection rod, an injection well and other means” (see Published specification, para. 85). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition used the same way would have the same effect.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alden et al (CA 3109644) and in view of EPA “Introduction to in situ bioremediation of groundwater” and in view of Song (US Pub.: 2017/0333961) and evidenced by SDA for TASK ™ and evidenced by NIST Chemistry WebBook “Isopropyl Alcohol” and evidenced by PubChem “Soybean Oil” and further in view of Ignasiak (CA 2206949).
As to Claims 1, 2, 7, 13 and 16, Alden describes a process for the in-situ remediation of soil and aquifers (abstract) comprising combining a water miscible oil, a solvent, a catalyst, that can include an enzyme biocatalyst) (abstract) and an alkaline compound (para. 22, step c) and heat (para. 23, step b). The alkaline compound can include potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide in an amount of 0.1 to 5wt% (para 47). The mixture, including heat, may be combined together and then the mixture is introduced into the soil or aquifer (para. 23). Treatment is performed on the surface of the contaminant (para. 51 and abstract). This is aboveground and can be considered “in proximity to the” medium to be treated.
Alternatively, Alden explains that this composition may be added to soil (see page 18, para. 1 or para. 53), which is added at an injection point either through a well or another means (para. 54) or by mechanically mixing the soil (para. 55). The mechanical mixing of soil with the remediation solution would therefore cause the same pore filling of a defined fraction of pores in the soil as the claims since the solution is mixed with the soil. The feature of 25-100% pore volume filling is described in the specification of this application as performed by feeding the remediation mixture through use of “an injection point, an injection rod, an injection well and other means” (see Published specification, para. 85). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition used the same way would have the same effect.
The oil used can include vegetable oils (para. 5, 6, 8, abstract). The mixture can include a surfactant (para. 19) and water (para. 19). Alkaline hydroxide is dissolved into an alcohol solution (para. 60) to produce a catalyst stock solution (para. 60). The catalyst stock solution is then catalyzed by heat (para. 62). This temperature is below the boiling-point of the alcohol and is generally known to be about 55 degrees C (para. 62).
Alden teaches making an oil, surfactant and water solution that contains the enzyme biocatalyst (para. 41). The mixture is combined with an alkaline compound (para. 41), which Alden teaches can be added separately (para.60, KOH is dissolved separately).
Alden does not specifically teach heating the oil, emulsifier and water mixture however. Also, Alden does not teach providing the heat source with a heat exchanger or that the heating is performed below a boiling point of the mixture.
As to separately heating the oil, water, surfactant and enzyme mixture, EPA describes the known technology of in-situ bioremediation (Introduction, line 1). The reference explains that these are known to detoxify organic and inorganic contaminants for water as well as in soil (Introduction, para. 2, pg. 1). There are many factors to consider when performing bioremediation (see Table of contents, sections 1 and 2). Included in these considerations is the temperature (see section 1.5.4.4). Here, EPA states that different species of bacteria have optimal range of temperature for growth and that growth rates increase with temperature (section 1.5.4.4). Ideal ranges depend on the type of bacteria used, but thermophiles prefer a range of 45-65 degrees C (section 1.5.4.4, para. 1). Groundwater is typically from 5-25 degrees C (see Fig. 9), but at temperature of less than 4 degrees C, the bacteria become inactive (section 1.5.4.4, para. 2). Circulation and then heating of this water in a closed circuit loop can help maintain biodegrading rates (section 1.5.4.4).
Therefore, since some microorganisms used in soil remediation prefer elevated temperatures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the microorganism-containing stream, as taught by EPA for use in the process of Alden because EPA explains that there are known microorganisms that prefer certain elevated temperatures for use in bioremediation.
As to the use of a heat exchanger for that heating, Song teaches a soil remediation process and device (title and abstract). The process includes a heat exchanger for use in the treatment device (para. 0135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a heat exchanger, as taught by Song for use with the heating step of Alden and EPA because heat exchangers are known to be used in soil remediation processes and their devices.
As to the boiling point, Alden teaches that the surfactant used can be TASK ™ (para. 30).
The attached safety data sheet explains that the boiling point of this compound is 100 degrees C (see attached SDS).
Alden teaches that the solvent used can include isopropanol alcohol and water (para. 58, 59).
The attached boiling point for isopropyl alcohol is 82.5 degrees C (see NIST, attached).
As to the vegetable oil, Alden teaches use of a number of different vegetable oils (para. 45), one of which is soybean oil (para. 44).
PubChem describes the boiling point of soybean oil as 347 degrees C (see section 3.1.5).
Therefore, given that the individual components have a boiling point higher than 60 degrees C, it is clear that the mixture of these would then have a boiling point that is similarly high.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the boiling point of isopropyl alcohol of 82.5 degrees C is “above 90 degrees C”.
Alternatively, Alden does not specifically teach that when the mixture is heated at a temperature of about 90 degrees C.
Ignasiak describes a method for heating aqueous slurries of soils contaminated with a number of oils, organics and volatiles (abstract). The process includes the step of heating steam at elevated temperatures passing from 70-degrees C to 95-99 degrees C, and then contacting this stream with the contaminated feed soil (abstract and page 6, last para.). Heating at these temperatures is known to remove benzene, toluene and m-xylene (see example II, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further heat the mixture of Alden, EPA, Song, evidenced by SDA, evidenced by NIST, evidenced by WebBook and evidenced by PubChem to an elevated temperature of from 70 degrees C to 95-99 degrees C, as taught by Ignasiak to remove benzene, toluene and m-xylene to further purify the soil.
Since this temperature range passes 90 degrees C, this meets the feature of “about 90 degrees C”.
As to Claims 3 and 11, Alden teaches that the alkaline compound is heated (see rejection to Claim 1 above and incorporated here). Alden then states that this stream is combined with the rest of the mixture (para. 60, dissolved separately and para. 53, combined with the rest of the mixture) and heated (para. 62). The combined mixture is then fed using an injection rod (Claim 15) at an elevated pressure (Claim 16). Alden teaches that the prevention of alcohol is known and desired (para. 62), but not that the injection is used to prevent evaporation of the alcohol. However, use of the same method would be effective to prevent the same result.
As to Claims 4 and 18, Alden teaches that the contaminants useable with this process includes: halogenated strain chain and aromatic hydrocarbons, perchlorate derivates, explosives (Claim 2).
As to Claim 8, this claim is treated to mean that the emulsifier can be any of the compounds listed in lines 1-2 “or” and not “and” the compounds in the list. Alden teaches that the surfactant an include a fatty acid ester the co-surfactant is listed in para. 44 and the HLB is from 6-8 (para. 44).
As to Claim 9, Alden teaches that the vegetable oil can be in the mixture from 85-99wt% and the surfactant can be in the mixture from 1-15wt% (para. 44).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
As to Claim 10, Alden teaches that the medium to be treated as be an aquifer (abstract). Aquifers are known to comprise water. Therefore, absent the contaminants, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the contaminated medium contains 99% or close to 99% water.
As to Claim 14, Alden teaches that the solution is mechanically mixed with the contaminated soil (para. 55).]
As to Claim 15, Alden teaches that the alcohol can include ethanol (para. 42).
As to Claim 17, Alden teaches that the additives can include zero-valent metal, iron sulfide reagents, vitamins, a yeast-extract, biological cultures and mixtures thereof (para. 56).
As to Claim 19, Alden teaches heating at about 55 degrees C (para. 62). Although Alden does not specifically teach that when the mixture is heated at a temperature of 32 degrees C, that there is a 64% total yield. However, since the process features are the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the results would give similar results.
As for the step of heating at a temperature of 90 degrees C, Alden does not teach this feature. It is assumed that if the mixture were heated to a temperature of 90 degree C, the yield in about 6 minutes would be 94%, although it cannot be determined without experimental tests.
Ignasiak describes a method for heating aqueous slurries of soils contaminated with a number of oils, organics and volatiles (abstract). The process includes the step of heating steam at elevated temperatures, such as at 95-99 degrees C, and then contacting this stream with the contaminated feed soil (abstract). Heating at these temperatures is known to remove benzene, toluene and m-xylene (see example II, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further heat the mixture of Alden, EPA, Song, evidenced by SDA, evidenced by NIST, evidenced by WebBook and evidenced by PubChem to an elevated temperature of 95-99 degrees C, as taught by Ignasiak to remove benzene, toluene and m-xylene to further purify the soil.
As to Claim 20, although Alden does not specifically disclose that their heating process increases transesterification of the vegetable oil by about 50% in about 90 days. Since the process steps are the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process features would produce the same characteristics and chemical changes.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alden, EPA, Song, evidenced by SDA, evidenced by NIST, evidenced by WebBook and evidenced by PubChem and Ignasiak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Funakawa (JP 2019/030822).
The references describe heating, such as a heat exchanger (see above), but they do not specifically state that the heating uses a device described in Claim 5.
Funakawa describes a soil purification system (title). The system is employed to warm a liquid that is combined with contaminated soil and degrading microorganisms to treat the soil (abstract). The liquid that is warmed to treat with the soil is heated using a gas boiler that stores water in the tank (see “Warming liquid generator”, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to warm the treating liquid using a water boiler, as taught by Funakawa for use with Alden, EPA, Song, evidenced by SDA, evidenced by NIST, evidenced by WebBook and evidenced by PubChem and Ignasiak because these are effective for warming liquids prior to treating contaminated soils.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alden, EPA, Song, evidenced by SDA, evidenced by NIST, evidenced by WebBook and evidenced by PubChem, Ignasiak and Funakawa as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 103990645).
Funakawa teaches use of a gas boiler for use in warming the liquid, but does not describe the use of a boiler described in Claim 6.
Zhang describes a thermal desorption method using boiler flue gas to treat organic compounds in polluted soil (title). The boiler is used to heat polluted soil (para. 14). The boiler type is a high temperature boiler because these boilers are heat stable and can ensure a stable heat supply (para. 14) for the high temperature treatment of organic matter (para. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the organic components in the polluted soil using high temperature boilers, as taught by Zhang for use with Alden, EPA, Song, evidenced by SDA, evidenced by NIST, evidenced by WebBook and evidenced by PubChem and Ignasiak because polluted soils are known to have unwanted organic components that require removal.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alden, EPA, Song, evidenced by SDA, evidenced by NIST, evidenced by WebBook and evidenced by PubChem and Ignasiak as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of JP 6823040.
Alden teaches use of an injection rod, but does not state the pressure.
JP ‘040 describes use of an injection rod and explains that the injection pressure is from 0.05 to 25 Mpa (page 7, para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the injection rod of Alden, EPA, Song, evidenced by SDA, evidenced by NIST, evidenced by WebBook and evidenced by PubChem and Ignasiak at a pressure of 0.05 to 25 MPa, as taught by JP ‘040 because these are known to operate this pressure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 January 30, 2026