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
Claims 15-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 26 March 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 26 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 11/27/2023, 3/14/2024, 9/6/2024, and 3/21/2025 have been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The waste residues of claims 13-14 are produced with heating the concentrated source. Heating the concentrated source appears to be part of the step of removing the one or more halogenated compounds of the concentrated source (see claim 1, lines 6-7). However, the waste residues described in [0074]-[0075] of the Specification of the present application are produced while concentrating the contaminated source, NOT while heating the concentrated source. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the waste residues are produced while heating the concentrated source, as claimed in claim 13.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1, lines 6-9, recite "removing the one or more halogenated compounds of the concentrated source by heating the concentrated source in the presence of beryllium oxide, magnesium oxide, strontium oxide, barium oxide, radium oxide, or any combination thereof to produce one or more fluorinated salts and one or more heated gases". It is unclear how the one or more halogenated compounds of the concentrated source are removed by heating to produce fluorinated salts and heated gases. This limitation is interpreted as requiring reacting the one or more halogenated compounds of the concentrated source by heating the concentrated source in the presence of beryllium oxide, magnesium oxide, strontium oxide, barium oxide, radium oxide, or any combination thereof to produce one or more fluorinated salts and one or more heated gases, thereby removing the one or more halogenated compounds.
Claims 2-14 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejarme (US 2020/0407241) in view of Cochran (US 2024/0417291; appears to have a filing date of 27 May 2023 based on PRO Application No. 63/504,736).
Regarding Claim 1, Dejarme discloses water or soil samples (water or soil meet the limitation of a contaminated source) may be treated to concentrate PFAS (PFAS meets the limitation of a halogenated compound) in a substantially-reduced volume, and the concentrated PFAS mixtures are then treated for PFAS destruction [0008]. The concentrated PFAS mixtures of Dejarme would necessarily have a greater wt.% of PFAS (halogenated compounds) than the water or soil (contaminated source). Dejarme further discloses a method of destroying PFAS (destroying PFAS meets the limitation of removing one or more halogenated compounds of the concentrated source) in a PFAS-containing aqueous mixture (PFAS-containing aqueous mixture meets the limitation of a concentrated source), comprising: reacting PFAS with an aqueous oxidant, and further comprising reaction with an alkaline earth compound, to convert the PFAS to a product mixture comprising carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide meets the limitation of a heated gas) and an alkaline earth fluoride (alkaline earth fluoride meets the limitation of one or more fluorinated salts) [0009], wherein the reaction is at a temperature of at least 100°C [0018], such that the concentrated source is heated, and the carbon dioxide product is “heated” and therefore meets the limitation of a heated gas.
Dejarme is silent to the alkaline earth compound being beryllium oxide, magnesium oxide, strontium oxide, barium oxide, radium oxide, or any combination thereof.
Dejarme, however, discloses calcium oxide as the alkaline earth compound [0018], and the alkaline earth compound of Dejarme is not particularly limited.
Cochran discloses a method of destroying and converting PFAS from PFAS-containing water, the method comprising adding an alkaline earth compound to the reactor to form a fluoride salt such as CaF2 ([0050], [0054]). Cochran further discloses precipitation reagents for precipitating solids from water include lime (CaO), magnesium oxide (MgO) [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dejarme to incorporate the teachings of Cochran to use magnesium oxide as the alkaline earth compound, because Dejarme teaches reacting PFAS with an alkaline earth compound, to convert the PFAS to an alkaline earth fluoride (alkaline earth fluoride meets the limitation of one or more fluorinated salts) [0009], wherein the alkaline earth compound may be CaO [0018], and both CaO and MgO are alkaline earth oxide compounds well-known in the art of precipitating fluorinated salts from PFAS-containing solutions, as recognized by Cochran [0028].
Regarding Claim 2, Dejarme discloses water or soil samples (water samples are liquids and therefore meet the limitation of a liquid contaminated source) may be treated to concentrate PFAS, and the concentrated PFAS mixtures are then treated for PFAS destruction [0008].
Regarding Claim 4, Dejarme discloses water or soil samples (soil samples are solids and therefore meet the limitation of a solid contaminated source) may be treated to concentrate PFAS, and the concentrated PFAS mixtures are then treated for PFAS destruction [0008].
Regarding Claim 6, Dejarme discloses a method of destroying PFAS in a PFAS-containing aqueous mixture [0009].
Regarding Claim 8, Dejarme further discloses the PFAS-containing aqueous mixture comprises at least 100 ppm PFAS by weight, in some embodiments at least 500 ppm or at least 1000 ppm PFAS, [0012]. 100 ppm is equivalent to 0.01 wt% (assuming a density of the mixture of 1 g/mL) such that at least 100 ppm PFAS in the concentrated source, taught by Dejarme meets the limitation of greater than or equal to 0.01 wt.% halogenated compounds, or in the alternative, overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.01 wt.% such that the range taught by Dejarme obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 9, Dejarme discloses a method of destroying PFAS in a PFAS-containing aqueous mixture, comprising: reacting PFAS with an aqueous oxidant, and further comprising reaction with an alkaline earth compound, to convert the PFAS to a product mixture comprising carbon dioxide and an alkaline earth fluoride, wherein the most preferred oxidant is hydrogen peroxide [0009]. Dejarme further discloses the reaction temperature is at least 100°C [0018], preferably 120-200°C [0090], which overlaps, or in the alternative is close to the claimed range of 200-900°C such that the range taught by Dejarme obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 10, Dejarme discloses a method of destroying PFAS in a PFAS-containing aqueous mixture comprising: reacting PFAS with an aqueous oxidant, and further comprising reaction with an alkaline earth compound, to convert the PFAS to a product mixture comprising carbon dioxide and an alkaline earth fluoride [0009]. Dejarme discloses using calcium oxide as the alkaline earth compound [0018] and adding calcium oxide results in the formation of calcium fluoride [0090]. However, the alkaline earth compound of Dejarme is not particularly limited.
Dejarme is silent to the alkaline earth fluoride comprising beryllium fluoride, magnesium fluoride, strontium fluoride, barium fluoride, radium fluoride, or any combination thereof.
Cochran discloses a method of destroying and converting PFAS from PFAS-containing water, the method comprising adding an alkaline earth compound to the reactor to form a fluoride salt such as CaF2 ([0050], [0054]). Cochran further discloses precipitation reagents for precipitating solids from water include lime (CaO), magnesium oxide (MgO) [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dejarme to incorporate the teachings of Cochran to use magnesium oxide as the alkaline earth compound, thereby producing magnesium fluoride, because Dejarme teaches reacting PFAS with an alkaline earth compound, to convert the PFAS to an alkaline earth fluoride (alkaline earth fluoride meets the limitation of one or more fluorinated salts) [0009], wherein the alkaline earth compound may be CaO [0018], and both CaO and MgO are alkaline earth compounds well-known in the art of precipitating fluorinated salts from PFAS-containing solutions, as recognized by Cochran [0028].
Regarding Claim 11, Dejarme discloses a method of destroying PFAS in a PFAS-containing aqueous mixture comprising: reacting PFAS with an aqueous oxidant, and further comprising reaction with an alkaline earth compound, to convert the PFAS to a product mixture comprising carbon dioxide and an alkaline earth fluoride [0009], wherein the reaction is at a temperature of at least 100°C [0018], such the carbon dioxide product is “heated” and therefore meets the limitation of a heated gas.
Regarding Claim 13, Dejarme discloses PFAS are destroyed and converted to carbonates, fluoride salts, and sulfates by the synergistic effect of temperature, pressure, addition of water, an oxidant and an alkali or alkaline earth element (or mixtures thereof) [0060]. Dejarme further discloses removing the salts ([0060], [0080]), which are produced while heating the concentrated source ([0009], [0018]). Dejarme further discloses salts can be a mixture of sodium chloride, sodium fluoride, sodium sulfate, sodium nitrate or corresponding salts of other alkali or alkaline earth elements [0080]. Therefore, salts other than the alkaline earth fluoride, which meet the limitation of waste residues, are produced while heating the concentrated source, and are subsequently removed.
Regarding Claim 14, Dejarme discloses PFAS are destroyed and converted to carbonates, fluoride salts, and sulfates by the synergistic effect of temperature, pressure, addition of water, an oxidant and an alkali or alkaline earth element (or mixtures thereof) [0060]. Dejarme further discloses removing the salts ([0060], [0080]), which are produced while heating the concentrated source ([0009], [0018]). Dejarme further discloses salts can be a mixture of sodium chloride, sodium fluoride, sodium sulfate, sodium nitrate or corresponding salts of other alkali or alkaline earth elements [0080]. Therefore, salts other than the alkaline earth fluoride, which meet the limitation of waste residues, are produced while heating the concentrated source, and are subsequently removed.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejarme (US 2020/0407241) in view of Cochran (US 2024/0417291; appears to have a filing date of 27 May 2023 based on PRO Application No. 63/504,736) and Galvan (US 2024/0279084; appears to have a filing date of 22 February 2023 based on PRO Application No. 63/447,574).
Regarding Claim 3, Dejarme and Cochran teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Dejarme is silent to concentrating the PFAS of the contaminated source to achieve the concentrated source occurring in a continuous reactor.
Galvan discloses removal of PFAS from drinking water, wastewater (drinking water and wastewater meets the limitation of a liquid source), and other solids and liquid applications [0002]. Galvan further discloses the use of foam flotation with CGA (Colloidal Gas Aphrons) and/or diffused gas bubbles to remove and concentrate PFAS which can be run in a batch or continuous flow operation [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dejarme to incorporate the teachings of Galvan to concentrate the PFAS in a continuous reactor, because concentrating PFAS is continuous flow operation is a process parameter well-known in the art of PFAS remediation, as recognized by Galvan.
Regarding Claim 5, Dejarme is silent to concentrating the PFAS of the contaminated source to achieve the concentrated source occurring in a batch reactor.
Galvan discloses removal of PFAS from drinking water, wastewater, and other solids and liquid applications [0002]. Galvan further discloses the use of foam flotation with CGA (Colloidal Gas Aphrons) and/or diffused gas bubbles to remove and concentrate PFAS which can be run in a batch or continuous flow operation [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dejarme to incorporate the teachings of Galvan to concentrate the PFAS in a batch reactor, because concentrating PFAS is batch flow operation is a process parameter well-known in the art of PFAS remediation, as recognized by Galvan.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejarme (US 2020/0407241) in view of Cochran (US 2024/0417291; appears to have a filing date of 27 May 2023 based on PRO Application No. 63/504,736) and Dukes (US 2023/0130585).
Regarding Claim 7, Dejarme and Cochran teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Dejarme is silent to concentrating the contaminated source by exposing the contaminated source to an ion exchange column comprising resin, granular activated carbons, absorbent compounds, or any combination thereof.
Dukes discloses a method of concentrating PFAS from a wastewater containing a concentration of PFAS (wastewater containing a concentration of PFAS meets the limitation of a contaminated source), comprising: passing the wastewater containing the PFAS over an ion exchange resin to uptake the PFAS onto the ion exchange resin; regenerating the ion exchange resin by passing an alcohol solution over the ion exchange resin to remove the PFAS and produce a waste stream comprising the alcohol solution containing the PFAS; directing the waste stream to an electrochemical separation device to produce a dilute stream comprising the alcohol solution being substantially free of the PFAS and a concentrate stream (concentrate stream meets the limitation of the concentrated source; claim 12), wherein a column comprises the ion exchange resin (column comprising ion exchange resin meets the limitation of an ion exchange column comprising resin; claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dejarme to incorporate the teachings of Dukes to concentrate the PFAS of the contaminated sources by exposing the contaminated source to an ion exchange column comprising resin, because utilizing an ion exchange column comprising resin is a process parameter well-known in the art of concentrating PFAS in a contaminated source, as recognized by Dukes, and a regenerable resin for concentrating PFAS requires fewer resources for the concentrating as the resin is reusable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejarme (US 2020/0407241) in view of Cochran (US 2024/0417291; appears to have a filing date of 27 May 2023 based on PRO Application No. 63/504,736) and Coleman (US 2005/0054871).
Regarding Claim 12, Dejarme and Cochran teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Dejarme discloses once the reactor is running, they use the heat from the reactor to pre-heat the fluid so that the reaction runs isothermally at steady-state [0087]. Dejarme discloses alkaline earth elements can be added with the concentrated PFAS solution into the oxidation reactor [0059], and since SCWO (supercritical water oxidation) reactors are exothermic, the entire process can be thermally and electrically self-sustaining after its initial startup [0095].
Dejarme is silent to heating the one or more halogenated compounds of the contaminated source with heat energy from the one or more heated gases.
Coleman discloses product recovery of a vapor stream which is recycled to the reaction zone as a heat source for bringing the reactor charge to the desired temperature for the reaction [0181].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dejarme to incorporate the teachings of Coleman wherein the one or more halogenated compounds of the contaminated source is heated with heat energy from the one or more heated gases in order to bring the contaminated source (aka the reactor charge) to the desired temperature for reaction, as recognized by Coleman [0181], as Dejarme recognizes the benefit of utilizing heat from the reactor to pre-heat the fluid so the entire process can be thermally and electrically self-sustaining after its initial startup ([0087], [0095]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights