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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-3, 5-18, 20, 22 and 31-32 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of invention I, claims 1-3, 5-14 and 31-32 in the reply filed on January 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-18, 20 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 31 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the byproduct” in line 5 and line 6. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “the liquid byproduct” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
Claim 9 recites “the byproduct” in lines 1-2. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “the liquid byproduct” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
Claim 10 recites “the liquid” in line 2. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “the liquid effluent” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
Claim 14 recites “the pH of the liquid effluent” in lines 3-4 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “the liquid effluent” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
Claim 31 recites “the interior” in line 2 which lacks an antecedent basis.
Claim 32 recites “the interior” in line 2 which lacks an antecedent basis.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claim 14 is 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “such as” in line 3. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a concentration of destruction byproducts” in line 3, and the claim also recites “such as F- ion concentration” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
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 of this title, 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(a) 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, 3, 5, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball (US 2019/0241452 A1).
In regard to claim 1 and 3, Ball discloses methods and apparatuses for the remediation of contaminated water and/or soil and, in particular, to the reduction of the concentration of organic compounds in water and/or soil such as the highly recalcitrant halogenated substances, such as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (paragraph [0008]).
Ball discloses a method for destroying perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substances, comprising (paragraph [0095]; a process embodiment shown in Fig. 5):
(i) introducing a liquid byproduct (Slurry Feed in Fig. 5) including a perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substance to a reactor (a series of treatment towers (5 towers in the embodiment) and two additional tanks for “Two-Stage Off-Gas scrubber”);
(ii) hydrolyzing in the reactor under alkaline conditions the perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substance in the byproduct (paragraphs [0082]; [0090]; [0096], especially, see “adding alkali metal hydroxide into the foam” in [0096])) (claim 3); and
(iii) producing a continuous stream of product from the reactor (Fig. 5 shows a steady, continuous process which directs a production of a continuous stream of product from the reactor), wherein the byproduct is an aqueous film-forming foam (paragraphs [0010]; [0012]; [0135]; [0138]; [0144]).
But Ball does not explicitly disclose the aqueous film-forming foam having 0.3 to 6% by weight of the perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substance.
However, Ball discloses various sources of the contaminants containing perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substance, such as soil and/or groundwater (paragraphs [0020]-[0024]; [0042]). With respect to the perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substance percentage in the aqueous film-forming foam, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substance percentage in the aqueous film-forming foam as claimed since various sources of the contaminants containing perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substance, such as soil and/or groundwater disclosed (Ball, paragraphs [0020]-[0024]; [0042]), wherein the perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substance percentage in the aqueous film-forming foam are expected to vary depending on the source(s) of the aqueous film-forming foam originated from.
In regard to claim 5, Ball discloses the feature of adding alkaline solution to the contaminants containing perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substance (paragraph [0096]; Fig. 5) which renders the recited claim limitation obvious.
In regard to claim 13, Ball discloses the feature of controlling temperature and pressure within the reactor to undergo reaction inside (paragraph [0026]), wherein the reaction reasonably expected to include hydrolysis of the contaminant.
In regard to claim 14, Ball discloses measuring one or more parameters of the reaction solution including a concentration of destruction byproducts such as F- ion concentration (para (0170]).
Claims 8, 9 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dejarme et al. (US 2020/0407241 A1, hereinafter “Dejarme”).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, Ball does not exilically discloses the features of cooling an effluent leaving the reactor to produce a liquid effluent, wherein cooling the effluent with the byproduct before introducing to the reactor.
However, Dejarme discloses a method of destroying PFAS in a PFAS-containing aqueous mixture (Abstract; paragraph [0009]), wherein the PFAS-containing aqueous mixture can be heated in a tube-in-tube heat exchanger (paragraphs [0043]; [0057]).
It is noted that both the Ball and Dejarme references direct a method of destroying PFAS in a PFAS-containing aqueous mixture.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Ball, in view of Dejarme, to provide the features of “cooling an effluent leaving the reactor to produce a liquid effluent, wherein cooling the effluent with the byproduct before introducing to the reactor” as recited in claims 8-9, because the method taught by Ball can be performed using a high temperature solution (Ball, paragraph [009]), and the use of a heat exchanger makes the process more energy efficient, compact and extends service life of the reactor (Dejarme, paragraph [0057]). In light of teachings from Ball and Dejarme, it would have been obvious to pass the reactor effluent through the other tube of the tube-in-tube heat exchanger to heat the byproduct with the effluent and cool the effluent with the byproduct in order to efficiently utilize all the heat energy stored in the effluent.
In regard to claim 31, Dejarme discloses a supercritical pressure and temperature condition in a reactor (pressure range of at least 220 bar and a temperature range of 374-1200 [Symbol font/0xB0]C) (paragraph [0066]). Since there is alkaline condition in the reactor as taught by Ball ([0096]), the recited hydroxide concentration range of 0.01M to 20 M would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize reactor activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the hydrothermal destruction operation (time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the reactor bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the contaminant containing liquid byproduct feedstock as well as the nature of the treated end-products.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball, in view of Dejarme, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0402794 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
In regard to claims 10 and 11, Ball, in view of Dejarme, does not exilically discloses the features of introducing a neutralizing agent to the liquid effluent to adjust pH of the liquid, wherein the neutralizing agent includes HCl or H2SO4.
However, Chen discloses a system for treating a water source contaminated with PFAS (paragraph [0006]), wherein a hydroxide solution is neutralized by a neutralizing agent, such as sulfuric acid, to adjust pH of the liquid (paragraph [0051]).
It is noted that both the Ball and Chen references direct a method of destroying PFAS in a PFAS-containing aqueous mixture.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Ball, in view of Dejarme, to provide the features of “introducing a neutralizing agent to the liquid effluent to adjust pH of the liquid, wherein the neutralizing agent includes H2SO4” as taught by Chen, because the neutralizing agent is effective for neutralizing hydroxide solutions for discharging process stream (paragraph [0098]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball, in view of Dejarme, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hsien et al. (US 2006/0006115 A1, hereinafter “Hsien”).
In regard to claim 12, Ball, in view of Dejarme, does not exilically discloses the feature of adding a calcium salt to the liquid effluent to produce precipitates, wherein the precipitates include CaF2 or CaSO4 or both.
However, Hsien discloses a method of fluoride-containing water treatment (paragraph [0012]), the method comprising: adding a calcium salt to a fluoride-containing waste water to produce precipitates comprising calcium fluoride (paragraph [0012]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Ball, in view of Dejarme, to provide the features of “adding a calcium salt to the liquid effluent to produce precipitates, wherein the precipitates include CaF2” as taught by Hsien, because the calcium ions in the calcium salt will reacts with fluoric ions remaining in the liquid effluent following hydrolysis, to form a solid precipitate that can be filtered to remove F- ions as taught by Hsien (paragraph [0022]) which directs an efficient waste treatment process.
Claims 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball (US 2019/0241452 A1), in view of Nickelsen et al. (US 2017/0297926 A1, hereinafter “Nickelsen”).
In regard to claims 2, 6 and 7, Ball discloses methods and apparatuses for the remediation of contaminated water and/or soil and, in particular, to the reduction of the concentration of organic compounds in water and/or soil such as the highly recalcitrant halogenated substances, such as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (paragraph [0008]).
Ball discloses a method for destroying perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substances, comprising (paragraph [0095]; a process embodiment shown in Fig. 5):
(i) introducing a liquid byproduct (Slurry Feed in Fig. 5) including a perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substance to a reactor (a series of treatment towers (5 towers in the embodiment) and two additional tanks for “Two-Stage Off-Gas scrubber”);
(ii) hydrolyzing in the reactor under alkaline conditions the perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substance in the byproduct (paragraphs [0082]; [0090]; [0096], especially, see “adding alkali metal hydroxide into the foam” in [0096])) (claim 3); and
(iii) producing a continuous stream of product from the reactor (Fig. 5 shows a steady, continuous process which directs a production of a continuous stream of product from the reactor), wherein the byproduct is an aqueous film-forming foam (paragraphs [0010]; [0012]; [0135]; [0138]; [0144]).
But Ball does not explicitly disclose a method for destroying a contaminant in a byproduct from an adsorbent media regeneration or reactivation process, wherein the byproduct is a liquid selected from: a brine containing water, 20% wt. or less of a salt or base, and 1% wt. or less of the contaminant, or a solution containing 50 to 90 vol% of an alcohol, 10 to 50 vol% of water, 1 to 5 wt% of a salt or a base, and the contaminant.
However, Nickelsen discloses a system and a process for removing and concentrating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (claim 6) from water, the system comprising; (i) anion exchange vessel, including a selected anion exchange resin (claim 7) therein configured to remove PFAS from the water; (ii) a line coupled to the vessel, configured to introduce a flow of water contaminated with PFAS such that the PFAS bind to the selected anion exchange resin and are thereby removed from the water; (iii) a regenerant solution line coupled to the anion exchange vessel configured to introduce an optimized regenerant solution to the anion exchange vessel to remove the PFAS from the anion exchange resin, thereby regenerating the anion exchange resin and generating a spent regenerant solution comprised of the removed PFAS and the optimized regenerant solution; and (iv) a separation and recovery subsystem configured to recover the optimized regenerant solution for reuse and separate and concentrate the removed PFAS (Figs. 3-4; page 5, claim 1). Nickelsen discloses a high concentration of a brine solution may be used effectively displace the anionic head of the PFAS from the anion exchange site of the anion exchange resin bead (paragraph [0028]), and discloses the optimized regenerant solution includes about 50% to about 90% methanol by volume, about 10% to about 50% water by volume, and about 1% to about 5% salt or base by weight (claim 6).
It is noted that both the Ball and Nickelsen references direct a method of destroying PFAS in a PFAS-containing aqueous mixture.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Ball to provide the features of “a method for destroying a contaminant in a byproduct from an adsorbent media regeneration or reactivation process, wherein the byproduct is a liquid selected from: a brine containing water, 20% wt. or less of a salt or base, and 1% wt. or less of the contaminant, or a solution containing 50 to 90 vol% of an alcohol, 10 to 50 vol% of water, 1 to 5 wt% of a salt or a base, and the contaminant” as taught by Nickelsen, because the byproduct (spent regeneration solution) can be further processed to remove contaminants (Nickelsen, paragraph [0016]), and the recited features are taught by Nickelsen (Figs. 3-4; page 5, claim 1; paragraph [0028]; claim 6).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball, in view of Nickelsen, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dejarme et al. (US 2020/0407241 A1).
In regard to claim 32, Ball, in view of Nickelsen, does not explicitly disclose the reaction temperature, pressure and hydroxide concentration as recited.
Dejarme discloses a method of destroying PFAS in a PFAS-containing aqueous mixture (Abstract; paragraph [0009]), wherein the PFAS-containing aqueous mixture can be heated in a tube-in-tube heat exchanger (paragraphs [0043]; [0057]).
Dejarme discloses a supercritical pressure and temperature condition in a reactor (pressure range of at least 220 bar and a temperature range of 374-1200 [Symbol font/0xB0]C) (paragraph [0066]). Since there is alkaline condition in the reactor as taught by Ball (paragraph [0096]), the recited hydroxide concentration range of 0.01M to 20 M would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize reactor activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the hydrothermal destruction operation (time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the reactor bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the contaminant containing liquid byproduct feedstock as well as the nature of the treated end-products.
It is noted that both the Ball and Dejarme references direct a method of destroying PFAS in a PFAS-containing aqueous mixture.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Ball, in view of Nickelsen, and further in view of Dejarme, to provide the features of the reaction temperature, pressure and hydroxide concentration as recited, because the recited reaction temperature, pressure and hydroxide concentration are known, effective features of reaction for destroying perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substances as taught or suggested by Ball (paragraph [0096]) and Dejarme (paragraph [0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772