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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED FINAL ACTION
Status of Claims
Cancelled
New
Currently Amended
Previously Presented/Original
Pending and Examined
13
21 and 22
1
2-12 and 14-20
1-12 and 14-22
All claims are drawn to a method.
Status of Previous Objections / Rejections
At this juncture, Examiner withdraws the previous Office action’s (OA) (i.e, 10/29/2025) §102 and §103 rejections in view of amendments to the claims, Applicant’s arguments and a reconsideration of the pertinent rejections. However, Examiner maintains certain 35 USC §103 rejections.
Response to Amendment
In their reply dated January 29, 2026, Applicant amended claim 1 to incorporate the features of cancelled claim 13, to address the rejections and claim interpretations of the prior Office (OA) and to potentially advance prosecution. In view of the claim amendments and the attendant revised scope of claim 1, Examiner applies new grounds of rejections for that claim in this OA. However, Examiner maintains the prior art of record.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1-9, 12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball (US 20210107816)(of record).
In the patentability analysis below, the bolded portions represent structural aspects of the claim. The italicized portions represent one or more portions of the manipulative steps. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation necessarily performs a manipulative step or the method claimed, then Examiner will consider the particular manipulative step to be disclosed by the prior art device. That is, when the prior art device is the same as a device described in Applicant’s specification for carrying out the claimed method, one may assume that the device will inherently perform the claimed process. MPEP §2112.02.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-7, 12 and 14-22, Ball discloses a method of removing of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from water (Abstract, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
a) sparging a gas into a container of water ([0020], [0028], [0045], [0093], [0100], [0113], [0125], [0128], [0152], where nitrogen, air, oxygen and ozone are gases, and where a vessel and a reactor are interpreted as containers; for in-situ groundwater, one can analogize the aquifer’s bedrock or the vertical recirculation, vapor stripping and/or horizontal wells ([0020]) to a container of water); and
b) collecting an aerosol released in a volume above the water ([0028]-[0031], [0044], [0053]).
Therefore, Ball discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating:
wherein less than 1% of the water is removed.
However, Ball notes that in some embodiments, oligosaccharides such as cyclodextrin can be used to extract, isolate and/or destroy PFAS from the environmental media, and one can use oligosaccharides to transfer poly fluoroalkyl compounds to either a foam layer or to an aerosol form for subsequent removal and destruction of contaminants ([0098]). For example, in the case of PFAS, the contaminant may be transferred to a foam layer or to an aerosol in the form of cyclodextrin-PFAS complexes, where hydrodynamic cavitation can also be combined to further enhance transfer of PFAS and cyclodextrin-PFAS from the contaminated water to the foam layer or aerosol form (Id.). The hydrodynamic cavitation can therefore provide a reactive environment and can also produce bubbles that lead to the formation of aerosols, foams or both (Id.). Also, cyclodextrin can be applied to both ex-situ and in-situ removal and destruction of PFAS, whereafter the clean water or the water from which PFAS has been removed can be injected back to the groundwater ([0099]). In some embodiments, cyclodextrins may also be combined with surfactants to further enhance removal of PFAS from soil or from water when alone or present with co-contaminants including non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) ([0102]).
One can control the rate of aerosol formation by controlling the gas phase pressure or vacuum, gas flow rate, gas bubble size, water temperature, water agitation, etc. ([0026]-[0030], [0048]). It is to be understood that in some cases, the disclosed methods may be applied either in-situ or ex-situ, or a combination or both in-situ and ex-situ, depending on the desired application ([0038]). In some embodiments, the methods disclosed can destroy, or break down, greater than 99% or greater than 99.9% of the perfluorinated materials that are present in a sample ([0058]). In select embodiments, an appreciable amount of contaminant may be physically transferred to an aerosol/foam without being chemically altered ([0044]).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely experiment to minimize the amount of water removal compared to contaminant removal such that less than 1% of the water is removed, since Ball notes that the clean water or the water from which PFAS has been removed can be injected back to the groundwater ([0099]), meaning that essentially all the clean water volume is left behind, and because one can control the rate and amount of aerosol formation using several variables ([0026]-[0030]), such that one would seek to enhance and maximize the contaminant removal and minimize water removal.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 21 is an independent method claim but includes many of the same or similar major elements as those recited in claim 1. As such, in the interest of convenience and brevity, Examiner applies at least portions of the claim 1 analysis and rationale herein, without repeating all text and/or claim mapping in their entirety.
Therefore, regarding claim 21, Ball discloses a method of removing of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from water, the method comprising:
a) sparging a gas into a container of water (claim 1 analysis); and
b) collecting an aerosol released in a volume above the water (claim 1 analysis) by positioning an adsorbent or absorbent above the volume above the water to collect the aerosol ([0019], [0036], [0037], [0044], [0053]);
Claim 2: Collecting an aerosol released in the volume above the water comprises positioning an adsorbent or absorbent above the volume above the water to collect the aerosol (Ball, [0036], [0053], where silica, alumina or activated carbon is an adsorbent or absorbent); Claim 4: Collecting an aerosol released in the volume above the water comprises flowing a gas across the volume above the water to collect the aerosol in a secondary chamber ([0037], [0044]); Claim 5: The method further comprising collecting the aerosol on an adsorbent or absorbent material within the secondary chamber ([0036]); Claim 6: The method further comprises condensing the aerosol in the secondary chamber ([0037], [0044]); Claim 7: Sparging the gas comprises flowing the gas through a diffuser ([0044], [0152]); Claim12: Sparging the gas in the container of water comprises cavitation tube sparging ([0085]-[0088], [0091], [0093], [0096]); Claim 14: A foam is not collected ([0093], [01555], where foam collection is optional); Claim 15: The method further comprises adding a surfactant to the water ([0102]); Claim 16: The PFAS is perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) ([0012]); Claim 17: The PFAS is perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ([0012], [0013]); Claim 18: The PFAS is perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) ([0144], [0153], [0167]); Claim 19: The PFAS is perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) ([0144], [0153], [0167]); Claim 20: The PFAS is perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) ([0144], [0153], [0167]); and Claim 22: The further comprising flowing a gas across the volume above the water to collect the aerosol in a secondary chamber (claim 21 analysis).
Regarding claim 3, Ball discloses the method of claim 2, except further comprising cleaning and recycling the adsorbent or absorbent (i.e., the sorbent).
Ball discusses recycling and reuse operations although not necessarily recycling/reuse of a sorbent ([0093], [0095], [0096], [0110]).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to clean and recycle or reuse the adsorbent or absorbent to reduce the need for additional adsorbent or absorbent and as a cost effective means of collecting the aerosol.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Ball discloses the method of claim 7, except wherein the diffuser has an average pore size from about 1 µm to about 100 µm.
Ball discusses controlling the gas bubble size ([0026], [0027], [0030], [0045]-[0048]) within a certain range, which one can accomplish by controlling the pore size of the diffuser.
Therefore, when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely experiment with various pore sizes to obtain a suitable or optimum pore size for achieving the desired results.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 9: The aerosol has an average particle size from about 1 µm to about 100 µm (claim 8 analysis).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball (US 20210107816), as applied to claim 1, in view of Fleischmann (US20140161629)(of record).
Regarding claim 10, Ball discloses the method of claim 1, except wherein sparging the gas in the container of water comprises pneumohydraulic sparging.
Fleischmann teaches a system for automatically siphoning water out of a sump pit or reservoir that only relies on domestic water as a sole source of motive power to automatically evacuate water from a sump pit, where a pump system uses neither electricity nor floats as it mechanically amplifies a small pneumatic pressure signal--a change in air pressure--to turn on and off a higher-pressure hydraulic source (Abstract). The pneumo-hydraulic sump water evacuation system overcomes the technical constraints and obstacles found in the prior art, including: not needing electricity to operate, not using a float ball-valve combination, not needing a dynamic seal for Radon-remediated buildings, not needing backpressure to evacuate water from a sump pit, and operating automatically without need for manual control or oversight ([0011]).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ any suitable sparging method, including pneumohydraulic sparging, particularly since a pneumohydraulic method could be more cost effect and efficient, as implied in Fleischmann.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball (US 20210107816), as applied to claim 1, in view of Goenka (US5,514,024)(of record).
Regarding claim 11, Ball discloses the method of claim 1, except wherein sparging the gas in the container of water comprises delivering gas by miniature axisymmetric supersonic nozzles.
Goenka discloses an apparatus and method for creating abrasive CO2 snow in a turbulence cavity and for directing the resulting snow particles onto a large area of contaminants to be removed from a workpiece, where the CO2 nozzle expels liquid CO2 under pressure through an orifice therein for converting the liquid into CO2 snow (Abstract, col. 1, lines 7-10). The CO2 snow is mixed with either liquid CO2 or CO2 in gaseous form depending on the combination of temperature and pressure (col. 4, lines 6-30). One may employ specific nozzles such as axisymmetric supersonic nozzles to achieve an appropriate velocity (col. 3, ln. 59 – col. 4, ln. 5; col. 7, lines 27-34).
At the time when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to use miniature axisymmetric supersonic nozzles for achieving an appropriate velocity for efficiently sparging the gas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01-29-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s contention that Ball’s in situ and ex situ methods are distinct, Ball states that the disclosed methods may be applied either in-situ or ex-situ, or a combination or both in-situ and ex-situ, depending on the desired application ([0038]). Ball can technically breakdown and remove over 99% of PFAS ([0058], [0130], [0131]), implying that there are embodiments where less than 1% of water is removed. Ball can also control the rate and thus the amount of aerosol formation by manipulating several variables ([0026]-[0030]).
Even if a provided example (one embodiment) suggests that more than 1% removal of water, this does not imply that in all instances more than 1% of water is removed, particular where Ball states that clean water (after PFAS removal) is left behind, in the in-situ embodiment (Ball, [0099]). Ball states: “In some embodiments, an above ground (ex-situ) reactor is disclosed in which contaminated water, waste, and/or groundwater may be introduced along with air, ozone, oxygen and optionally other oxidants to both destroy, breakdown, and/or defluorinate PFAS. In these and other embodiments, PFAS may be physically removed from the water, waste and/or groundwater by concentrating the PFAS into the bubbles/aerosols that can then be trapped and collected.”
This broad Ball disclosure implies the removal of PFAS from the water, without the removal of any water. It would have thus been obvious to optimize the method by maximizing PFAS removal and minimizing the removal of water, and the recited removal of less than 1% water is in line with this expected optimization.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571)270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
Prosecution Insights