DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending
Claims 1-6 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality:
In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “said effluents” to “said tritiated radioactive effluents” in claim 5, lines 4-5. Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6 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.
5. Each of claims 1 and 3 recites the term, "the treated effluent" which lacks antecedent basis. In light of claim 1, line 4, the examiner interprets this phrase as “the treated tritiated radioactive effluents”. Clarification is required.
6. Regarding dependent claims 2-5, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
7. Each of claims 1 and 4 recite the term “low and medium activity waste” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low and medium activity waste” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner interprets this term as “radioactive waste”. Clarification is required.
8. Regarding dependent claims 2-5, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
9. Each of claim 2 and 6 recites the term, "the tritiated effluent" which lacks antecedent basis. In light of claim 1, line 4, the examiner interprets this phrase as “the tritiated radioactive effluents”. Clarification is required.
10. Regarding dependent claim 3, this claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 2 noted above, and is rejected for the same rationale.
11. Each of claim 2, 3, and 6 recites the term, "tritiated radioactive effluent" which lacks antecedent basis. In light of claim 1, line 4, the examiner interprets this phrase as “tritiated radioactive effluents”. Clarification is required.
12. Claim 4, line 4 recites the term, "the radioactive effluent" which lacks antecedent basis. In light of claim 1, line 4, the examiner interprets this phrase as “the tritiated radioactive effluents”. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 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.
14. Claims 1-2, and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terao et al. (JP 2012112769 A) (Terao).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of JP 2012112769 A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
15. Regarding claim 1, Terao teaches a method for recovering radioactive materials that uses a radioactive material recovery material (Terao, [0001]) to safely treat large quantities of liquids, gases, etc. containing radioactive materials discharged from nuclear facilities (Terao, [0016])
wherein the radioactive material to be captured includes tritium (Terao, [0022]).
Terao further teaches the radioactive material recovery material containing a cyclic oligosaccharide (Terao, [0015]) attached to a carrier (i.e. adsorbent material) (Terao, [0015])
wherein preferred examples of the carrier (i.e. adsorbent material) include cellulose in the shape such as fibrous, thread, and string (i.e. filaments) (Terao, [0021]).
Given that Terao discloses the radioactive material recovery material that overlaps the presently claimed adsorbent material, including the carrier being cellulose in the shape such as fibrous, thread, and string, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the radioactive material recovery material with fibrous cellulose, which is both disclosed by Terao and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
wherein the radioactive material recovery material is insoluble in a liquid containing radioactive material (Terao, [0031]).
Terao further teaches the radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) is recovered from the liquid containing radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) by separating the radioactive material recovery material has captured the radioactive material (i.e. the tritiated adsorbent material) from the supernatant liquid (Terao, [0031]);
wherein the radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) is recoverable via precipitation of the radioactive material recovery material (Terao, [0019])
wherein the radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) decays as radioactive waste (Terao, [0031]).
16. Regarding claim 2, Terao further teaches the limits of concentration for radioactive materials (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) in a room which they are used are regulated by law (Terao, [0002]);
wherein radioactive materials (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) may cause serious health concerns such as cancer and impaired biological functions (Terao, [0002])
wherein radioactive material recovery material including fibrous cellulose (i.e. cellulose filaments) has captured the radioactive material (i.e. the tritiated adsorbent material) is stored until the radioactivity decays below the concentration limit (Terao, [0030]).
Although there are no disclosures of the discrete concentration of the tritiated radioactive effluents in the cellulose filaments comprising between 0.6 and 3.4 g/L, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) incorporated in the radioactive material recovery material including cellulose, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to comply with the limits on concentration of radioactive materials (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) regulated by law (Terao, [0002]) to eliminate serious health concerns such as cancer (Terao, [0002]).
17. Regarding claim 6, Terao further teaches the limits of concentration for radioactive materials (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) in a room which they are used are regulated by law (Terao, [0002]);
wherein radioactive materials (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) may cause serious health concerns such as cancer and impaired biological functions (Terao, [0002])
wherein the radioactive recovery material including fibrous cellulose (i.e. cellulose filaments) has captured the radioactive material (i.e. the tritiated adsorbent material) is stored until the radioactivity decays below the concentration limit (Terao, [0030]).
Although there are no disclosures of the discrete concentration of the tritiated radioactive effluents in the cellulose filaments comprising between 1.1 and 1.6 gr/litre, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) incorporated in the radioactive material recovery material including cellulose, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to comply with the limits on concentration of radioactive materials (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) regulated by law (Terao, [0002]) to eliminate serious health concerns such as cancer (Terao, [0002]).
18. Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terao as applied to claims 1-2 and 6 above, and further in view of Patterson et al. (US 6348153 B1).
19. Regarding claim 3, Terao further teaches the radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) is suspended in water (i.e. predetermined volume of tritiated radioactive effluents)
wherein the radioactive material recovery material (i.e. adsorbent material) (Terao, [0030]) includes a fibrous cellulose carrier (i.e. cellulose filaments) (Terao, [0021]) is added and shaken (i.e. stirred) (Terao, [0030]).
Terao further teaches the limits of concentration for radioactive materials (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) in a room which they are used are regulated by law (Terao, [0002]).
wherein radioactive materials (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) may cause serious health concerns such as cancer and impaired biological functions (Terao, [0002])
Although there are no disclosures of the discrete concentration of the tritiated radioactive effluents in the cellulose filaments comprising between 0.6 and 3.4 g/L, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) incorporated in the radioactive material recovery material including cellulose, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to comply with the limits on concentration of radioactive materials (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) regulated by law (Terao, [0002]) to eliminate serious health concerns such as cancer (Terao, [0002]).
Terao further teaches the radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) is captured by the radioactive material recovery material (i.e. the tritiated adsorbent material) and separated from the supernatant liquid by filtration (Terao, [0031]).
However, Terao does not teach filtering through ultrafiltration membranes of the treated effluent.
With respect to the difference, Patterson teaches a process for treating the heavy hydrogen isotope content of the contaminated water (Patterson, Abstract)
wherein heavy hydrogen sources include tritium oxides (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) from the contaminated water of nuclear power plants (Patterson, p.29, column 1, lines 35-38).
Patterson further teaches a molecular separation material and a membrane separation material that can be used in combination for simultaneous water treatment (Patterson, p. 30, column 4, lines 5-7);
wherein the separation membrane is formed of various materials such as cellulose acetate (Patterson, p. 30, column 3, lines 42-43) in the form of one or more hollow fibers (i.e. ultrafiltration membranes)
wherein the contaminated water passes through the interior of these fibers to allow light water molecules preferentially pass through the walls of the fibers to the exterior of the fibers for collection (Patterson, p. 30, column 4, lines 1-4).
Patterson expressly teaches that the contaminated water is first exposed to the separation membrane (i.e. ultrafiltration membrane) to remove a portion of the light water to concentrate the water stream (Patterson, p. 30, column 4, lines 7-10)
wherein by concentrating the heavy water isotopes (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) in the stream molecular separation is increasingly effective, since the isotopes comprise a relatively higher percentage of the waste stream (Patterson, p. 30, column 4, lines 10-14).
Terao and Patterson are analogous art as they are all drawn to a method for treating radioactive waste such as tritium or tritium hydroxide.
In light of the motivation for filtering water contaminated with heavy isotopes (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) with a separation membrane (i.e. ultrafiltration membrane) as disclosed by Patterson, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separation of radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) from the supernatant liquid by filtration of Terao to have a separation membrane (i.e. ultrafiltration membrane), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Terao further teaches the radioactive material recovery material that has captured the radioactive material (i.e. the tritiated adsorbent material) is stored until the radioactivity decays (i.e. retains the radioactive activity) (Terao, [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
21. Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
22. While Terao teaches the limitation of claim 1, Terao does not disclose or suggest the limitation of claim 4. Specifically, Terao teaches that the liquid containing radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluents) are passed through radioactive material recovery material layer (Terao,[0030]) once but does not teach recirculation of the tritiated radioactive effluents.
23. While Terao teaches the limitation of claim 1, does not disclose or suggest the limitation of claim 5. Specifically, Terao teaches the radioactive material (i.e. tritiated radioactive effluent) is gaseous (Terao, [0014]) is passed through radioactive material recovery material including fibrous cellulose (i.e. cellulose filaments) (Terao, [0021]), but does not disclose or suggest that the cellulose filaments or microcrystalline cellulose are introduced into filter sleeves with a pore size between 1 and 100 microns.
Conclusion
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732