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
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 February 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 24 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 24 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 14-16 and 19 are amended. Accordingly, claims 1-19 remain pending in the application with claims 1-13 considered in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 9 May 2023, 28 August 2024, and 24 February 2026 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2, “setting rate” should read “settling rate”.
Claim 6, lines 1-2, “mechanically scrapping…from a cooled surface” should read “mechanically scraping…from a cooled surface”.
Claim 12, line 1, “process of claims 11” should read “process of claim 11”.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1, lines 1-2, recite “a process for treating fluid comprising water, radioactive particulate, dissolved ions, and a neutron absorber”. Claim 1, lines 4-5, recite “receiving a fluid…comprising the water, the radioactive particulate, and the neutron absorber dissolved in the fluid”. It is unclear if the fluid being received in line 4 is the same as the fluid of line 1. It is further unclear if the fluid of line 4 comprises dissolved ions, because claim 1, lines 9-10, recite “separating the dissolved ions”, such that the fluid of line 4 appears to contain the dissolved ions. This limitation is interpreted as requiring receiving the fluid of claim 1, line 1, comprising the water, the radioactive particulate, the dissolved ions, and the neutron absorber in a crystallization unit.
Claim 12, lines 1-2, recite “wherein enhanced gravity separation is hydrocycloning or centrifuging”. It is unclear if separating using enhanced gravity separation is required, because separating using enhanced gravity separation is optional per claim 11, lines 3-4. This limitation is interpreted as requiring separating using enhanced gravity separation, wherein the enhanced gravity separation is hydrocycloning or centrifuging.
Claims 2-11 and 13 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 1-2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krumpholz (DE 10156119; DE Patent Pub of IDS Doc WO 2003/043027) in view of Formanek (US 6,263,037) and Wakayama (US 2015/0038760) as evidenced by Sigma-Aldrich (“Boric acid”) and Caltech (“Physical Properties of Ice”).
Regarding Claim 1, Krumpholz discloses treating an evaporator concentrate of pressurized water reactors (evaporator concentrate of pressurized water reactors meets the limitation of fluid comprising water) comprising contamination of nuclear power plants (contamination of nuclear power plants meets the limitation of radioactive particulate), sodium sulfate solution (sodium sulfate solution contains sodium and sulfate ions and therefore meets the limitation of dissolved ions), and boric acid (boric acid in solution meets the limitation of a neutron absorber dissolved in the fluid; [0007]). Krumpholz further discloses a crystallization unit for cooling the fluid to form a boric acid crystal (boric acid crystal meets the limitation of a second crystal comprising the neutron absorber) and a sodium sulfate solution crystal [0007]. Krumpholz further discloses the sodium sulfate solution crystallizes at -5 to 0°C as Glauber’s salt [0016], the Glauber’s salt crystals melt in their own crystal water [0022], such that the sodium sulfate solution crystal comprises water, and therefore, the sodium sulfate solution crystal of Krumpholz meets the limitation of a first crystal comprising the water. Krumpholz further discloses separating the crystallized boric acid by filtering, centrifuging, or decanting [0012] and separating the crystallized Glauber’s salt by filtering, centrifuging, or decanting [0016]. Krumpholz further discloses the remaining mother liquor contains almost all the radioactivity of the treated evaporator concentrate [0028], such that Krumpholz meets the limitation of separating the first crystal from the second crystal and the radioactive particulate.
Krumpholz is silent to separating the first crystal from the dissolved ions.
Krumpholz, however, discloses if decontamination of the sodium sulfate is insufficient, a subsequent recrystallization can be carried out, wherein the Glauber’s salt crystals melt in their own water and are added to a water bath to dissolve in it, and cooling crystallization is repeated to form solid, purified, Glauber’s salt [0020]-[0023], such that the water and sodium sulfate (the dissolved ions) are separated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krumpholz to separate a first crystal comprising water from the dissolved ions instead of separating the water and the dissolved ions of the first crystal in a recrystallization step, because both result in the separation of water and dissolved ions, and selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Krumpholz is silent to the fluid being received from a cutting zone.
Krumpholz, however, discloses treating evaporator concentrates of nuclear power plants [0007].
Formanek discloses a cutting zone in a reactor pool cavity of a nuclear power plant, which provides a barrier for isolating radioactive material generated during the decommissioning or repair of various reactor equipment or components (Col. 2, lines 9-11). Formanek further discloses the cutting zone reduces the spread of radioactive particles (Col. 1, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krumpholz to incorporate the teachings of Formanek to receive the fluid from a cutting zone for recovery of radioactive components in order to reduce the spread of radioactive particles, as recognized by Formanek (Col. 1, lines 10-15).
Krumpholz is further silent to the fluid being cooled below a freezing point.
Wakayama discloses a method for processing radioactively-contaminated water comprising a freeze concentration step wherein the fluid is cooled below a freezing point to produce ice having a lowered concentration of radioactive substance (Abstract; [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krumpholz to incorporate the teachings of Wakayama to cool the fluid below a freezing point to produce ice/water having a decreasing concentration of radioactive substance, as recognized by Wakayama (Abstract).
The density of boric acid crystals is 1.48 g/cm3 (pg. 6) and the density of ice is 0.917 g/cm3 (pg. 2), such that the second crystal has a greater density that the first crystal.
Regarding Claim 2, Krumpholz discloses the presence of boric acid [0007].
Regarding Claim 4, Krumpholz discloses the evaporator concentrates are first freed from any insoluble solids (insoluble solids meets the limitation of solid suspended particles) that may be present by conventional separation, filtration, centrifugation or decanting [0009] before the fluid is received in the crystallization unit [0012].
Regarding Claim 7, Krumpholz further discloses separating the crystallized Glauber’s salt (the first crystal) by filtering, centrifuging, or decanting (filtering, centrifuging, or decanting meet the limitation of mechanically removing the first crystal from the crystallization unit; [0016]).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krumpholz (DE 10156119; DE Patent Pub of IDS Doc WO 2003/043027) in view of Formanek (US 6,263,037) and Wakayama (US 2015/0038760) and Kostedt (US 2017/0217802).
Regarding Claim 3, Krumpholz, Formanek, and Wakayama teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Krumpholz is silent to the settling rate of the radioactive particulate.
Kostedt discloses in previous attempts to remove radioactive materials the particle settling rate was too slow to allow for gravitational separation [0006]. Kostedt further discloses gravitational separation of a flocculated precipitate [0035], wherein the floc settles in less than 15 minutes [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krumpholz to incorporate the teachings of Kostedt wherein the radioactive particles have a setting rate in a range of 0.5 to 2 m.hr-1 in order to improve gravity separation, as recognized by Kostedt [0006], and discovery of optimum ranges of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of art and selection of the optimum ranges within the general condition is obvious (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding Claim 8, Krumpholz is silent to washing the first crystal to cleanse the surface of the first crystal to reduce an amount of the fluid and the radioactive particulate entrained on the surface of the first crystal.
Kostedt discloses a method of removing barium and naturally occurring radioactive materials from water by crystallizing salt crystals [0010]. Kostedt further discloses treating the salt crystals to remove entrained mother liquor from the crystal surface by washing to minimize barium and other impurities in the salt crystals [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krumpholz to incorporate the teachings of Kostedt to wash the first crystal in order to minimize impurities in the salt crystals, as recognized by Kostedt [0060].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krumpholz (DE 10156119; DE Patent Pub of IDS Doc WO 2003/043027) in view of Formanek (US 6,263,037) and Wakayama (US 2015/0038760) and Zheng (CN 104810071).
Regarding Claim 5, Krumpholz, Formanek, and Wakayama teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Krumpholz is silent to pre-cooling the fluid before it is received in the crystallization unit to a temperature above the freezing point of the fluid.
Zheng discloses a method and equipment for purification of boron-containing radioactive waste liquid [0008]. Zheng discloses a boric acid crystallization and recovery unit comprising a heat exchanger followed by a crystallizer [0017], wherein the feed solution is cooled in the heat exchanger to 10°C and then fed to the crystallizer for subcooling and crystallization [0046], such that the fluid of Zheng is pre-cooled before it is received in the crystallization unit to a temperature above the freezing point of the fluid. Zheng further discloses boron concentrate at 50-70°C enters the heat exchanger with the circulating mother liquor from the outlet of the crystallizer [0046]. Zheng further discloses processing energy consumption is greatly reduced [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krumpholz to incorporate the teachings of Zheng to pre-cool the fluid before it is received in the crystallization unit to a temperature above the freezing point of the fluid to reduce the energy required for crystallizing the boric acid, as recognized by Zheng [0008].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krumpholz (DE 10156119; DE Patent Pub of IDS Doc WO 2003/043027) in view of Formanek (US 6,263,037) and Wakayama (US 2015/0038760) and Becker (US 2014/0323766).
Regarding Claim 6, Krumpholz, Formanek, and Wakayama teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Krumpholz discloses forming uniform crystal layers on the cooling surface [0019]. Krumpholz further discloses separating the crystallized boric acid by filtering, centrifuging, or decanting [0012] and separating the crystallized Glauber’s salt by filtering, centrifuging, or decanting [0016].
Krumpholz is silent to scraping at least one of the first crystal and the second crystal from a cooled surface in the crystallization unit.
Becker discloses cooling to cause crystallization, followed by separating either by filtration or by scraping from the surface of the crystallization unit [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krumpholz to incorporate the teachings of Becker to scrape at least one of the first crystal and the second crystal from a cooled surface in the crystallization unit, because Krumpholz teaches the claimed invention except that filtration is used instead of scraping. Becker teaches that the filtration and scraping are equivalent methods known in the art. Therefore, because the two methods were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the filtration for the scraping.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krumpholz (DE 10156119; DE Patent Pub of IDS Doc WO 2003/043027) in view of Formanek (US 6,263,037) and Wakayama (US 2015/0038760) and Lamoureux (US 6,197,188).
Regarding Claim 9, Krumpholz, Formanek, and Wakayama teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 7.
Krumpholz discloses Glauber's salt crystals melt in their own crystal water [0022].
Krumpholz is silent to re-circulating the cleansed water to the cutting zone.
Lamoureux discloses a filtration system for concentrating radioactive debris particulate (Abstract). Lamoureux further discloses resulting filtered water from the filtration system is returned back into the cut zone enclosure to provide a closed-loop filtration system (Abstract). Lamoureux further discloses contamination is prevented or minimized through a closed loop system (Col. 5, lines 49-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krumpholz to incorporate the teachings of Lamoureux to re-circulating the cleansed water to the cutting zone to prevent contamination, as recognized by Lamoureux (Col. 5, lines 49-51).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krumpholz (DE 10156119; DE Patent Pub of IDS Doc WO 2003/043027) in view of Formanek (US 6,263,037) and Wakayama (US 2015/0038760) and Shin (KR 20060022743).
Regarding Claim 10, Krumpholz, Formanek, and Wakayama teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Krumpholz is silent to maintaining, with at least one pump, the fluid at a velocity greater than a deposition threshold through the crystallization unit.
Shin discloses preventing precipitation of inorganic substances using high flow rates of a waste liquid through a reactor (pg. 12, par. 2; pg. 15, par. 14), wherein the waste liquid flow is controlled by a pump (pg. 7, par. 2), and wherein the high flow rate in the reactor prevents clogging (pg. 2, par. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krumpholz to incorporate the teachings of Shin to maintain, with at least one pump, the fluid at a velocity greater than a deposition threshold through the crystallization unit in order to prevent clogging, as recognized by Shin (pg. 2, par. 5).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krumpholz (DE 10156119; DE Patent Pub of IDS Doc WO 2003/043027) in view of Formanek (US 6,263,037) and Wakayama (US 2015/0038760) and Maki (WO 2019220001).
Regarding Claim 11, Krumpholz, Formanek, and Wakayama teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Krumpholz discloses separating the crystallized boric acid by centrifuging (centrifuging meets the limitation of a separator using enhanced gravity separation; [0012]), such that the second crystal, the radioactive particulate, and the dissolved ions are necessarily removed from the crystallization unit and the second crystal is separated from the radioactive particulate and the dissolved ions in a separator.
Krumpholz is silent to removing the second crystal, the radioactive particulate, and the dissolved ions from a bottom portion of the crystallization unit.
Maki discloses a process for treating liquid radioactive waste to recover boric acid as radiochemically clean crystalline boron (pg. 2, lines 13-19). Maki further discloses the bottoms product of the crystallizer is pumped to a separation operation for separating the crystallized, precipitated matter formed by the boric precipitate from the liquid (pg. 7, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krumpholz to incorporate the teachings of Maki to remove the second crystal, the radioactive particulate, and the dissolved ions from a bottom portion of the crystallization unit, as removing products of crystallization from the bottom of a crystallizer for pumping to a separation operation is a process parameter well-known in the art of crystallizing a boric acid (neutron absorber) from radioactive waste, as recognized by Maki.
Regarding Claim 12, Krumpholz discloses separating the crystallized boric acid by centrifuging [0012].
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krumpholz (DE 10156119; DE Patent Pub of IDS Doc WO 2003/043027) in view of Formanek (US 6,263,037) and Wakayama (US 2015/0038760) and Kitzes (US 4,444,680).
Regarding Claim 13, Krumpholz, Formanek, and Wakayama teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Krumpholz is silent to providing shielding from the radioactive particulate for at least one aspect of the process.
Kitzes discloses a process for treating a fluid comprising radioactive materials and boric acid through a crystallization process (Abstract). Kitzes further discloses the crystallization unit is appropriately shielded in order to minimize personnel exposure (Col. 6, lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krumpholz to incorporate the teachings of Kitzes to provide shielding from the radioactive particulate for at least one aspect of the process in order to minimize personnel exposure, as recognized by Kitzes (Col. 6, lines 42-46).
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