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
Claim1-12 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups I-II and species (b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 20 May 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, species (a), claims 13-17 and 19-20,
in the reply filed on 20 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 18 December 2023 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text in Fig. 1 is illegible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 13-17 and 19-20 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.
The preamble of claim 13 requires "destroying ultra-short chain PFASs". However, the body of claim 13 does not recite destroying ultra-short chain PFASs. This limitation is interpreted as requiring “irradiating a solution containing one or more ultra-short chain PFASs with UV radiation to destroy the one or more ultra-short chain PFASs”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the PFASs destroyed" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu ("Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies") in view of Xiong (US 2022/0371920) as evidenced by Silva (“Nanostructured transparent solutions for UV-shielding: Recent developments and future challenges”).
Regarding Claim 13, Liu discloses a process for degradation (degradation meets the limitation of destroying) of perfluorocarboxylates (PFCAs, CnF2n+1COO-), where n=1-7 (Abstract). The Specification of the present application states that ultra-short chain PFAS may be any per or polyfluorinated molecule with a chain length of less than or equal to three carbons atoms [019], such that the PFCAs of Liu where n=1-3 meet the limitation of ultra-short chain PFASs.
Liu further discloses the process comprises irradiating a solution containing the PFCAs with 254 nm irradiation (pg. 3701, Table 1 caption; pg. 3700, Col. 2, par. 3).
Silva discloses UV is a form of electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength range of 100 nm-400 nm (pg. 1, Col. 1, par. 1), such that the 254 nm irradiation of Liu meets the limitation of UV radiation.
Liu further discloses the solution comprises Na2SO3 (Na2SO3 dissociates in solution such that the solution comprising Na2SO3 contains a sulfite ion; see pg. 3705, Col. 2), KI (KI meets the limitation of one or more sensitizers per [056] of the Specification of the present application, such that the KI is necessarily capable of absorbing UV radiation, absent a showing to the contrary), NaHCO3 (NaHCO3 (sodium bicarbonate) meets the limitation of one or more bases per [030] of the Specification of the present application) (pg. 3701, Table 1 caption). Liu further discloses the reaction takes place at a pH of 12.0 (pg. 3701, Table 1 caption), wherein the pH is adjusted by NaOH (NaOH meets the limitation of one or more bases; pg. 3700, Col. 2, par. 3).
Liu is silent to the pH of the solution being greater than 13.
Xiong discloses a method for degrading PFASs, comprising applying UV light to a liquid containing one or more PFAS compounds [0006]. Xiong further discloses the liquid comprises a sulfite (ion) [0006], a pH control agent such as NaOH [0054], and potassium iodide or sodium iodide (potassium iodide or sodium iodide meet the limitation of one or more sensitizers capable of absorbing UV radiation; [0059]). Xiong further discloses the pH of the liquid is adjusted to at least, at most, about, or exactly 9, 9.5, 10, 10.5, 11, 11.5, 12, 12.5, 13, 13.5, or 14, or within a range bounded by any pair of the foregoing values [0008], which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 13 such that the range taught by Xiong obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Xiong further discloses the solution pH is the most critical factor influencing the rate and extent of defluorination, and a high pH (e.g., ≥11) not only enhances the capability of the hydrated electron to cleave the very strong C—F bonds, but also alters the ratio of two competing reaction pathways toward the favorable defluorination pathway [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to incorporate the teachings of Xiong wherein the pH of the solution is greater than 13, because pH is the most critical factor influencing the rate and extent of defluorination, and a high pH (e.g., ≥11) not only enhances the capability of the hydrated electron to cleave the very strong C—F bonds, but also alters the ratio of two competing reaction pathways toward the favorable defluorination pathway, as recognized by Xiong [0044].
Regarding Claim 14, Liu discloses a process for degradation PFCAs, including TFA and PFPrA (pg. 3701, Table 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Liu discloses adjusting the pH of the solution using NaOH (NaOH meets the limitation of an alkali metal hydroxide; pg. 3700, Col. 2, par. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Liu discloses the solution comprises Na2SO3 (Na2SO3 meets the limitation of a sodium salt of sulfite; pg. 3701, Table 1 caption).
Regarding Claim 19, Liu discloses the solution comprises KI (aka potassium iodide) (pg. 3701, Table 1 caption).
Regarding Claim 20, Liu discloses adjusting the pH of the solution using NaOH (pg. 3700, Col. 2, par. 3).
Liu is silent to the one or more bases being added in an amount sufficient to establish the pH of the solution at greater than 13.2.
Xiong discloses a method for degrading PFASs, comprising applying UV light to a liquid containing one or more PFAS compounds [0006]. Xiong further discloses the liquid comprises a sulfite (ion) [0006], a pH control agent such as NaOH [0054], and potassium iodide or sodium iodide (potassium iodide or sodium iodide meet the limitation of one or more sensitizers capable of absorbing UV radiation; [0059]). Xiong further discloses the pH of the liquid is adjusted to at least, at most, about, or exactly 9, 9.5, 10, 10.5, 11, 11.5, 12, 12.5, 13, 13.5, or 14, or within a range bounded by any pair of the foregoing values [0008], which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 13.2 such that the range taught by Xiong obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Xiong further discloses the solution pH is the most critical factor influencing the rate and extent of defluorination, and a high pH (e.g., ≥11) not only enhances the capability of the hydrated electron to cleave the very strong C—F bonds, but also alters the ratio of two competing reaction pathways toward the favorable defluorination pathway [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to incorporate the teachings of Xiong wherein one or more bases is added in an amount sufficient to establish the pH of the solution at greater than 13.2, because pH is the most critical factor influencing the rate and extent of defluorination, and a high pH (e.g., ≥11) not only enhances the capability of the hydrated electron to cleave the very strong C—F bonds, but also alters the ratio of two competing reaction pathways toward the favorable defluorination pathway, as recognized by Xiong [0044].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu ("Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies") in view of Xiong (US 2022/0371920) and Liu ‘586 (US 2021/0072586).
Regarding Claim 16, Liu and Xiong teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 13.
Liu discloses adjusting the pH of the solution using NaOH (NaOH meets the limitation of one or more bases; pg. 3700, Col. 2, par. 3).
Liu is silent to the one or more bases being potassium hydroxide.
Liu ‘586 discloses sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide as pH adjusting agents [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to incorporate the teachings of Liu ‘586 to use potassium hydroxide in place of sodium hydroxide, because potassium hydroxide is a known alternative to sodium hydroxide for adjusting pH, as recognized by Liu ‘586.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights