DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 were rejected in Office action mailed 3/10/2026.
Applicant filed a response and amended claims 1-6.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claim 1 is rejected.
Claims 2-5 are objected to.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
4. 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 (i.e. the adsorbent material is made of 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]).
Response to Arguments
5. In response to the amended claim 5, the previous claim objection is withdrawn.
6. In response to amended claims 1-4 and 6, the previous claim rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
7. Upon further consideration of the data on pages 8-9 of Specification, the data establishes unexpected results of using the claimed concentration of the cellulose filaments. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 2, 3, and 6 are withdrawn from the record.
8. Applicants primarily argue:
“For this reason, Applicant strongly submits that a person skilled in the art, starting from Terao et al and seeking to develop a method for treating radioactive tritiated effluents
using an adsorbent material, would have concluded that the presence of a cyclic oligosaccharide is essential for that purpose. Accordingly, a person skilled in the art would not have considered, under any circumstances, the use of cellulose (let alone the use of cellulose filaments or microcystalline cellulose as defined in claim 1) as the technical feature responsible for capturing radioactive substances, since in Terao et al, the role of capturing the radioactive substance is attributed exclusively to the cylcic oligosaccharide.”
Remarks p. 13
The Examiner respectively traverses as follows:
Claim 1 recites, “…an adsorbent material made of cellulose…”
Firstly, it is noted that claim 1 is not closed transition language. Hence, while it is agreed that a cyclic oligosaccharide is essential in Terao, there is nothing in the present claims to exclude comprising cyclic oligosaccharide in the claimed adsorbent material. Therefore, given Terao teaches a radioactive material recovery material containing a cyclic oligosaccharide attached to a cellulose carrier, wherein the preferred examples of the carrier (i.e. adsorbent material) include cellulose (i.e. the adsorbent material is made of cellulose) in the shape such as fibrous, thread, and string (i.e. filaments) (Terao, [0021]), Terao does teach the claimed absorbent material, absent evidence to the contrary See item #4 of Office Action set forth above.
Secondly, it has brought to the examiner’s attention, given the cellulose in the shape such as fibrous, thread, and string the carrier in Terao is identical/substantially identical to the cellulose filament used in the present invention, therefore it is clear that the cellulose in Terao would be capable to function as an adsorbent material, as presently claimed.
9. Applicants further argue:
“Applicant respectfully draws the Examiner's attention to the table spanning pages 8-9 of the present application, which shows that between 0.6 and 3.4 gr/l, there is an increase in the adsorbed tritium activity, and particularly between 1.1 and 1.6 gr/l as per claim 6.”
Remarks p. 14
The Examiner respectively traverses as follows:
It is noted that the concentration of cellulose filament is not required until claim 2. Therefore, the data is not commensurate in the scope with the scope of claim 1.
10. Applicants further argue:
However, Patterson et al fails to cure any of the aforementioned deficiencies of Terao et al. Accordingly, for the same reasons given above as to claim 1, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103, has been overcome.
Remarks p. 14
The Examiner respectively traverses as follows:
Firstly, Terao already teaches an adsorbent material made of cellulose filaments or microcrystalline cellulose. See item #4 of Office Action set forth above.
Secondly, it is noted that while Patterson does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Patterson is used as teaching reference, namely a molecular separation material and a membrane separation material that can be used in combination for simultaneous water treatment, in order to achieve filtering of water contaminated with heavy isotopes, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 2-6 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.
12. Regarding claim 2, Terao does not teach any amount of the cellulose, as presently claimed. Further, the data establishes unexpected results of using the claimed concentration of the cellulose filaments.
13. Regarding claim 3, Terao does not teach any amount of the cellulose, as presently claimed. Further, the data establishes unexpected results of using the claimed concentration of the cellulose filaments.
14. Regarding claim 4, while Terao teaches the limitation of claim 1, Terao does not disclose or suggest treatment by recirculation of the tritiated radioactive effluents on a fluidized bed. 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.
15. Regarding claim 5, while Terao teaches the limitation of claim 1, does not disclose or suggest the cellulose filaments or microcrystalline cellulose introduced into filter sleeves with a pore size between 1 and 100 microns. 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.
16. Regarding claim 6, Terao does not teach any amount of the cellulose, as presently claimed. Further, the data establishes unexpected results of using the claimed concentration of the cellulose filaments.
Conclusion
17. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights