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 .
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 20 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites “wherein said liquid flows through the or each chamber and the absorptive treatment device”. It is unclear whether “the or each” intends to refer to multiple chambers or the single recited chamber. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 20 to recite “flows through the
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, 20-23, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by Phillips, WO 2019/111238 (Phillips, IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 11-12, Phillips discloses a method for separating an amount of a PFAS substance such as PFOS (Claims 1, 16) from water, comprising:
Introducing an amount of water containing the substance into a chamber via an inlet (Claim 1);
Introducing a flow of gas into the chamber and producing a froth layer which rises above an interface of the water and introduced gas, the froth layer including an amount of water and a concentrated amount of the substance (Claim 1);
Removing a portion of the froth layer from an upper portion of the chamber (Claim 1); and
Passing an amount of water from the chamber through an absorptive treatment device arranged to remove a further amount of the substance (see “Stage 13 PFAS Absorbent”, fig. 5, Claims 11-12 and 19-20).
Regarding claims 3-5, Phillips discloses a method further comprising controlling the water content of the froth layer by controlling a physical parameter of the flow of introduced gas via a flow controller (Claims 1, 4).
Regarding claims 6-7, Phillips discloses a method wherein controlling a physical parameter of the froth layer comprises using a froth depth regulation device (Claim 8) or a device for confining a cross-sectional flow path of the froth in the upper portion of the chamber (Claim 10).
Regarding claim 8, Phillips discloses a method wherein the froth layer is collapsed during the removal step from the upper portion of the chamber, prior to undergoing a secondary treatment step (Claim 11).
Regarding claim 9, Phillips discloses a method where collapsed froth layers are serially transferred to additional chambers, where froth portions in each chamber are transferred to downstream chambers and subsequently passed through the absorptive treatment device (see “Stage 7” and “Stage 13”, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Phillips discloses a method wherein the secondary treatment step uses absorptive process (see “Stage 13 PFAS Absorbent”, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Phillips discloses a method wherein the liquid flows into each chamber via gravity (fig. 5)
Regarding claims 21-23, Phillips is relied upon in the rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and 20 set forth above.
Regarding claim 25, Phillips discloses an apparatus for separating an amount of a substance from water comprising one or more chambers which:
Are arranged to admit movement of water via gravity (Claim 17, fig. 5);
Have respective gas introduction devices for producing a froth layer (Claim 17, figs. 1-4);
Have a device for removing at least some of the froth layer from an upper portion of the chamber (Claim 17); and
An exit for discharging remaining water (Claims 34-35).
Regarding claim 26, Phillips discloses an apparatus further comprising an absorptive treatment device (see “Stage 13 PFAS Absorbent”, fig. 5) placed in fluid communication with the exit. Phillips further discloses an apparatus arranged to gravity-feed water from the chamber exit through the absorptive treatment device.
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.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Schroder et al., US 6770205 (Schroder).
Regarding claim 14, while Phillips selects an absorptive material (see “Stage 13 PFAS Absorbent”, fig. 5), Phillips does not disclose the material is a composite particle comprising an aggregate core surface coated with a reactive absorbent material. However, Schroder discloses that it is common to use activated carbon-coated sand for the purposes of treating pollutants in wastewater (abstract, C2/L32-40).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Phillips to utilize the carbon-coated sand as described in Schroder since it has been shown that such materials are effective in remediating wastewater and the selection of known materials on the basis of their suitability for an intended use is no more than obvious design choice absent a showing a criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 15, Phillips (in view of Schroder) discloses the adsorptive solid material is housed in a permeable reactive barrier (i.e. sand in absorption tanks as seen in the rejection of claims 1+14).
Regarding claim 16, Phillips (in view of Schroder) discloses a method wherein the preselected material is suitable for absorption of PFAS materials including PFOS (Claims 1, 16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779