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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-10, 12-18, 20 and 22 in the reply filed on 3/30/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 23 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/30/2026.
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 1-10, 12-18, 20 and 22 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.
Regarding claims 1-10, 12-18, 20 and 22, in claim 1, the recitation in the last paragraph “generating the fluoride salt, Clean Fuel Gas and Char source that are substantially-free of PFAS byproducts and halogenated organic compounds and do not include tars and/or oils” is overall narrative and imprecise and needs clarity:
Recitation “generating the fluoride salt, Clean Fuel Gas and Char source” lumps three separate limitations into one and is confusing. Examiner suggests reciting “generating the fluoride salt, the Clean Fuel Gas and a Char source” because Char source is first recited here, whereas the previous line provides antecedent basis for Clean Fuel Gas.
Recitation “that are substantially-free of PFAS byproducts and halogenated organic compounds and do not include tars and/or oils” is unclear whether all or some of these compounds are free, additionally the dash in “substantially-free” is unclear; examiner suggests reciting “that are each substantially free of PFAS byproducts and halogenated organic compounds and do not include tars and/or oils” for clarity.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “10% fluorine content” lacks units and therefore is unclear.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "other surface repellant products for fabrics" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "other"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "other recoverable products" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "other"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "other halogenated organics" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "other"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "other fluorinated compounds" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "other"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 16, “the Clean Fuel Gas source” disagrees with claim 1 recitation “the Clean Fuel Gas”.
Regarding claim 17, “the methods” has unclear antecedent basis, and “the method” would be given proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17, “the Clean Fuel Gas and Char source” should be amended to agree with claim 1, i.e. “the Clean Fuel Gas and the Char source”.
Regarding claim 18, “the methods” has unclear antecedent basis, and “the method” would be given proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 20, “the fuel gas source” disagrees with claim 1 recitation “the Clean Fuel Gas”.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "an alternative application of use" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " an alternative application of use"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 before the effective filing date of the invention 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) 1-3, 5-10, 12-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandhorst, Jr et al (US 2018/0072955) taken in combination with Strathmann et al (US 2020/0155885).
Regarding Claim 1, Brandhorst discloses a method for safely processing and/or recycling waste sources including polymeric material and toxic halogenated hydrocarbon compounds comprising: inputting the waste sources into a thermolysis system comprising at least: one reactor for a multicomponent and multistep energy-assisted chemical reaction (see [0012, 0013]); undergoing a depolymerization and a cracking reaction of hydrocarbons in the waste source which appears to break or cleave C-C bonds and C-H bonds in the waste sources and provide an excess hydrogen to destroy and/or remove toxic compounds present in the waste sources (see [0012, 0013, 0047, and 0108); and forming gas and processing the gas through at least one gas/aqueous scrubber to form a Clean Fuel Gas, wherein the gas is neutralized to form salts [see [0012, 0013, 0108- 0112); and generating the salts, Clean Fuel Gas and Char source that are substantially-free of and halogenated organic compounds and do not include tars and/or oils [0012, 0013, 0108-0112].
However, Brandhorst fails to explicitly disclose a method for safely processing and/or recycling PFAS materials and/or PFAS containing waste sources comprising: inputting a PFAS material and/or PFAS containing waste sources into a thermolysis system comprising at least: one reactor for a multicomponent and multistep energy-assisted chemical reaction to defluorinate PFAS compounds in the PFAS material and/or PFAS containing waste source; undergoing a depolymerization and a cracking reaction of hydrocarbons in the waste source to cleave C-C bonds and C-H bonds in the PFAS materials and/or PFAS containing waste sources to provide an excess hydrogen to cleave C-F bonds and destroy and/or remove toxic compounds present in the PFAS materials and/or PFAS containing waste sources; and forming HF gas and processing the HF gas through at least one gas/aqueous scrubber to form a Clean Fuel Gas, wherein the HF gas is neutralized to form fluoride salts; and generating the fluoride salts, Clean Fuel Gas and Char source that are substantially-free of PFAS byproducts and halogenated organic compounds and do not include tars and/or oils.
Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS which appears to be capable of forming the recited HF gas and fluoride salts, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products [see [0010, 0012, and 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at the time of the invention to modify Brandhorst with the PFAS teaching of Strathmann, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable method for safely processing and/or recycling PFAS materials and/or PFAS containing waste sources comprising: inputting a PFAS material and/or PFAS containing waste sources into a thermolysis system comprising at least: one reactor for a multicomponent and multistep energy-assisted chemical reaction to defluorinate PFAS compounds in the PFAS material and/or PFAS containing waste source: undergoing a depolymerization and a cracking reaction of hydrocarbons in the waste source to cleave C-C bonds and C-H bonds in the PFAS materials and/or PFAS containing waste sources to provide an excess hydrogen to cleave C-F bonds and destroy and/or remove toxic compounds present in the PFAS materials and/or PFAS containing waste sources; and forming HF gas and processing the HF gas through at least one gas/aqueous scrubber to form a Clean Fuel Gas, wherein the HF gas is neutralized to form fluoride salts; and generating the fluoride salts, Clean Fuel Gas and Char source that are substantially-free of PFAS byproducts and halogenated organic compounds and do not include tars and/or oils involves only routine skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, for the purpose of inputting a PFAS material and/or PFAS containing waste sources into the thermolysis system, and thereby destroying, defluorinating, and mineralizing the PFAS waste source, and prnd11r.e liquid and gaseous fuel products (Strathmann [0010, 0012, and 0078]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1. However Brandhorst fails to explicitly disclose the method, wherein the PFAS material has less that about 10 wt% fluorine content when inputted into the thermolysis system.
Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS, which appears to be capable of having less that about 10 wt% fluorine content when inputted into a thermolysis system, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products [see [0010, 0012, and 0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at the time of the invention to modify Brandhorst with the PFAS teaching of Strathmann, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable method, wherein the PFAS material has less that about 10 wt. % fluorine content when inputted into the thermolysis system involves only routine skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, for the purpose of inputting a desired PFAS material into the thermolysis system, and thereby destroying, defluorinating, and mineralizing the PFAS material, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products (Strathmann [0010, 0012, and 0078]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1. However, Brandhorst fails to explicitly disclose the method, wherein the PFAS-containing waste source is a plastic, foam, liquid crystals chemical crop protectant. h1hricant, stain-resistant product, waterproof product, other surface repellant products for fabrics, carpets, leather, paints, cleaning products, food packaging and/or nonstick product.
Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances including foam comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products (see [0004, 0010, 0012, and 0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at the time of the invention to modify Brandhorst with the PFAS teaching of Strathmann, for the purpose of inputting a PFAS foam waste source into the thermolysis system, and thereby destroying, defluorinating, and mineralizing the PFAS foam, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products [Strathmann [0010, 0012, and 0078]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising an initial step of shredding the waste source to provide a substantially uniform waste source (see [0014, and 0094]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the waste source has an average diameter of less than about 2 inches before it is inputted into the thermolysis system [see [0014, and 0094]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1, comprising adding a hydrogen source into the reactor where the depolymerization and a cracking reaction occurs to drive the reaction, (since the polypropylene in the waste sources disclosed in Brandhorst is an olefin which would appear to provide a hydrogen source to the thermolysis reactor see [0012, 0013, 0047, 0049, and 0083]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the hydrogen source is an olefin polymer, or an organic source, (since the polypropylene in the waste sources disclosed in Brandhorst is an olefin which would appear to provide a hydrogen source to the thermolysis reactor see [0012, 0013, 0047, 0049, and 0083]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the thermolysis system comprises at least one reactor with a process temperature of from about 400 C-800 C for the PFAS material and/or PFAS containing waste source to undergo at least partial gasification (see [0099]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the thermolysis system provide indirect heat in a system that is free of oxygen and a pressure range from about 10 to about 100 millibar (see [0099-0100]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the steps of undergoing depolymerization and cracking reaction of hydrocarbons in the waste source further cleaves additional hydrogen-halogen bonds (since the depolymerization and cracking in the thermolysis reactor disclosed in Brandhorst would appear to cleave bonds hydrogen-halogen bonds in chlorinated-brominated components, see [0017, and 0108]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the toxic compounds destroyed and/or removed comprise polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), halogenated dibenzodioxins, halogenated dibenzofurans, biphenyls, and/or pyrenes, or other halogenated organics. and wherein the salts, Clean Fuel Gas and Char source generated appear to contain less than about 10 ppb of the halogenated organic compounds (see [0012, 0013, 0017, 0032, and 0111]).
Brandhorst fails to explicitly disclose the method, wherein the toxic compounds destroyed and/or removed comprise PFAS byproducts, and wherein the fluorinated salts, Clean Fuel Gas and Char snurr.P. generated contain less than about 10 ppb of the halogenated organic compounds
Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS, which appears to be capable of forming the recited fluorinated sails, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products (see [0010, 0012, and 0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at the time the invention was made to modify Brandhorst in view of the PFAS teaching of Strathmann, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable method, wherein the fluorinated salts, Clean Fuel Gas and Char source generated contain less than about 10 ppb of the halogenated organic compounds involves only routine skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, for the purpose of treating PFAS byproducts and toxic compounds; in the thermolysis reactor, and thereby destroying, defluorinating, and mineralizing the PFAS waste byproducts and toxic compounds, and producing desired liquid and gaseous fuel products (Brandhorst [0012, 0013, 0017, 0032, and 0111], and Strathmann [0010, 0012, and 0078]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1, however Brandhorst fails to explicitly disclose the method, wherein the HF gas is neutralized with a mineral basic component.
Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products (see [0010, 0012, and 0078]).
Therefore, the treatment of the PFAS disclosed in Strathmann in the thermolysis reactor disclosed in Brandhorst would appear to produce the recited HF gc1s which would be neutralized with the alkaline gas scrubbing stage (see Brandhorst [0012, 0013, 0110, and 0111], and Strathmann [0010, 0012, and 0078]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at the time of the invention to modify Brandhorst with the teaching of Strathmann, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable method, wherein the HF gas Is neutralized with a mineral basic component involves only routine skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, for the purpose of neutralizing HF gas with a mineral basic component in the method, and thereby forming a desired salt in a scrubber (Brandhorst [0012, 0013, 0110, and 0111], and Strathmann [0010, 0012, and 0078]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1, however Brandhorst fails to explicitly disclose the method, wherein the formed fluoride salts can be used for synthesis of other fluorinated compounds.
Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluonnate, and mineralize the PFAS, which appears to be capable of forming the recited fluorinated or fluoride salts, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products [see l"'aras. 0010, 0012, and 0078].
Therefore, the treatment of the PFAS disclosed in Strathmann in the thermolysis reactor and scrubber disclosed in Brandhorst would appear to produce the recited fluoride salts which can be used for synthesis of other fluorinated compounds (see Brandhorst [0012, 0013, 0110, and 0111], and Strathmann [0010, 0012, and 0078]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at the time of the invention to modify Brandhorst with the teaching of Strathmann, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable method, wherein the formed fluoride salts can be used for synthesis of other fluorinated compounds involves only routine skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, for the purpose of forming the recited fluoride salts in the method, and thereby recovery a desired salt for further synthesis (see Brandhorst [0012, 0013, 0110, and 0111], and Strathmann [0010, 0012, and 0078]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1 and further wherein the Clean Fuel Gas source further comprise the separation of oil-soluble substances from a gas/vapor mixture following the thermolytic conversion of hydrocarbons in the PFAS material and/or waste source (see [0018]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1 and further wherein the methods do not generate any toxic halogenated organic compounds and/or PFAS byproducts in the process of converting the PFAS material and/or waste sources to the Clean Fuel Gas and Char source (see [0017]).
Regarding Claim 18 (as best interpreted), modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 17. However, Brandhorst fails to explicitly disclose the method, wherein the at least 99% of the PFAS compounds in the PFAS material and/or PFAS-containing waste source is destroyed and/or wherein the at least 99% destroyed PFAS compounds includes any PFAS byproducts formed during the method.
Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS, which appears to be capable of destroying at least 99 wt % of the PFAS compounds, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products (Strathmann [0010, 0012, and 0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at the lime of the invention to modify Brandhorst with the PFAS teaching of Strathmann, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable method, wherein the at least 99% of the PFAS compounds in the PFAS material and/or PFAS-containing waste source is destroyed and/or wherein the at least 99% destroyed PFAS compounds includes any PFAS byproducts formed during the method involves only routine skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, for the purpose of destroying .=in effective amount of the PFAS compounds in the method, and thereby forming desired gaseous fuel products [Strathmann [0010, 0012, and 0078].
Regarding Claim 20, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the Char and the fuel gas source are free of halogenated organic compounds, and wherein at least a portion of the fuel gas source generated is provided back to the method for indirect heat into the thermolysis system and/or converting additional PFAS material and/or waste sources to provide an energy source for such method and/or provided as a fuel source for an alternative application of use (since the fuel gas source produced in Brandhorst appears to be capable of providing indirect heat into the thermolysis system, see [0013, 0014 and 0016]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandhorst, Jr et al (US 2018/0072955) taken in combination with Strathmann et al (US 2020/0155885) as applied above and further in combination with Valdmaa et al (US 9,815,225).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1, however, Brandhorst fails to explicitly disclose the method, further comprising a first step of separating metal and/or recoverable components from the waste source before inputting into the thermolysis system.
Valdmaa teaches a method to separate metals from a plastic waste prior to melting the plastic waste during thermal processing (see Fig. 1, C3:L64-67, C4:L1-26, C7:L47-61, and C8:L33-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at the time of the invention to modify Brandhorst with the separation teaching of Valdmaa, for the purpose of separating metals from the waste source, and thereby recovering metals from the waste source prior to thermolysis or thermal processing (see Valdmaa Fig. 1, C3:L64-67, C4:L1-26, C7:L47-61, and C8:L33-38).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandhorst, Jr et al (US 2018/0072955) taken in combination with Strathmann et al (US 2020/0155885) as applied above and further in combination with Erickson et al (US 5,531,975).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Brandhorst discloses the method of claim 1, however Brandhorst fails to explicitly disclose the method, further comprising a step of precipitating the fluoride salts from the gas/aqueous scrubber.
Erickson teaches a method to contact hydrogen fluoride vapors with a scrubber solution to form insoluble or precipitated fluoride salts in an adiabatic scrubber (Fig. 7, and C10:L40-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at the time of the invention to modify Brandhorst with the precipitation teaching of Erickson, for the purpose of insolubilizing or precipitating fluoride salts from the scrubber in the method, and thereby recovering the fluoride salts from the scrubber solution (Erickson, Fig. 7, and C10:L40-60).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10, 12-18, 20 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,816,033 in view of Strathmann et al (US 2020/0155885). The claims of the ‘033 patent are substantially overlapping with the instant claims, however are more generally directed to halogenated compounds and not specifically PFAS as claimed. Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS which appears to be capable of forming the recited HF gas and fluoride salts, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products (see [0010, 0012, and 0078]). Therefore it would have been obvious to treat PFAS substances in the method of the ‘033 patent as taught by Strathmann to treat more types of waste compounds.
Claims 1-10, 12-18, 20 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,538,707 in view of Strathmann et al (US 2020/0155885). The claims of the ‘707 patent are substantially overlapping with the instant claims, however are more generally directed to halogenated compounds and not specifically PFAS as claimed. Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS which appears to be capable of forming the recited HF gas and fluoride salts, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products (see [0010, 0012, and 0078]). Therefore it would have been obvious to treat PFAS substances in the method of the ‘707 patent as taught by Strathmann to treat more types of waste compounds.
Claims 1-10, 12-18, 20 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,613,704 in view of Strathmann et al (US 2020/0155885). The claims of the ‘704 patent are substantially overlapping with the instant claims, however are more generally directed to halogenated compounds and not specifically PFAS as claimed. Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS which appears to be capable of forming the recited HF gas and fluoride salts, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products (see [0010, 0012, and 0078]). Therefore it would have been obvious to treat PFAS substances in the method of the ‘704 patent as taught by Strathmann to treat more types of waste compounds.
Claims 1-10, 12-18, 20 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,850,433 in view of Strathmann et al (US 2020/0155885). The claims of the ‘433 patent are substantially overlapping with the instant claims, however are more generally directed to halogenated compounds and not specifically PFAS as claimed. Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS which appears to be capable of forming the recited HF gas and fluoride salts, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products (see [0010, 0012, and 0078]). Therefore it would have been obvious to treat PFAS substances in the method of the ‘433 patent as taught by Strathmann to treat more types of waste compounds.
Claims 1-10, 12-18, 20 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,961,461 in view of Strathmann et al (US 2020/0155885). The claims of the ‘461 patent are substantially overlapping with the instant claims, however are more generally directed to halogenated compounds and not specifically PFAS as claimed. Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS which appears to be capable of forming the recited HF gas and fluoride salts, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products (see [0010, 0012, and 0078]). Therefore it would have been obvious to treat PFAS substances in the method of the ‘461 patent as taught by Strathmann to treat more types of waste compounds.
Claims 1-10, 12-18, 20 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,814,585 in view of Strathmann et al (US 2020/0155885). The claims of the ‘585 patent are substantially overlapping with the instant claims, however are more generally directed to halogenated compounds and not specifically PFAS as claimed. Strathmann teaches to treat waste substances comprising PFAS in a hydrothermal reactor to destroy, defluorinate, and mineralize the PFAS which appears to be capable of forming the recited HF gas and fluoride salts, and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products (see [0010, 0012, and 0078]). Therefore it would have been obvious to treat PFAS substances in the method of the ‘585 patent as taught by Strathmann to treat more types of waste compounds.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further citations to Brandhorst are cited herein. Kaneko et al (US 6,178,899) teaches a waste treatment method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights