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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
1. This application was filed on 01/11/2023.
Claims 1-30 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-30 are currently pending in this application and under consideration.
Specification
2. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Paragraph)
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.
Claims 1-30 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.
Regarding claim 1, the “whereby” clause is not a positive limitation in the claim, see In re Creclius, 31 USPQ 326; Texas Instrument v ITC, 26 USPQ.2d 1018, and should be eliminated to improve the clarity of the claim.
*Claims 2-30 are rejected because they depend on rejected claim 1 and they do not cure the indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
4. 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-9, 21-22, & 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hielbing et al. “Rational Design and Implementation of Novel Polymer Adsorbents for Selective Uptake of PFAS from Groundwater”, hereinafter “Hiebling et al.”
Hielbing et al. discloses a method of removing PFAS from a cationic CDP adsorbent having adsorbed PFAS thereon (see Abstract) comprising:
contacting a volume of CDP having cationic properties (see adsorbent 6, Table 4) with a regeneration medium comprising sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) (see "4.1.4.2 Performance of Next-Generation CDPs as Adsorbents"; Fig. 24); NaCl is also used as a regeneration medium (see p. 29, Fig. 26).
Methanol and ethanol are used as solvents or regeneration medium for regeneration of CDPs (see page 6, “The next step of results”).
More than 96% removal of 7 PFAS by using CDP1 cationic adsorbent (see page 23; page 27, Table 4, adsorbent 6).
separating the cationic CDP adsorbent from the regeneration medium (see page 88),
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, & 7-9, Hiebling et al. appears to teach the claimed method of removing PFAS from a cationic CDP adsorbent having adsorbed PFAS comprising the same process steps as claimed and using methanol or ethanol, and salts, (Na2SO4) and NaCl, as a regeneration medium, with a removal rate of more than 96% of the PFAS is removed from the cationic adsorbent into the regeneration medium.
Regarding claim 21, the regeneration is carried out at ambient temperature (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 22, the cationic CDP adsorbent is contained in a packed bed vessel or to be used in packed-bed filtration processes (see p. 76, “5.2 Rapid small-scale column tests”).
Regarding claims 25-30, the PFAS removed from the cationic CDP adsorbent is further treated (see p. 76, “5.3 Handling spent media”).
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 21-22, & 25-30 are unpatentable as being anticipated by Hiebling et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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) 3, 5-6, & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hielbing et al. “Rational Design and Implementation of Novel Polymer Adsorbents for Selective Uptake of PFAS from Groundwater”, hereinafter “Hiebling et al., as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 21-22, & 25-30 above, and in further view of Deng et al. “Enhanced adsorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoate by bamboo-derived granular activated carbon”, hereinafter Deng et al.”.
Hielbing et al. discloses a method of removing PFAS from a cationic CDP adsorbent having adsorbed PFAS thereon as set forth in the precedent paragraph, except for the following differences.
Regarding claims 3, 5, & 6, Heibling et al. does not expressly state that the regeneration solution contains both the alcohol and water, and also does not disclose the volumetric ratio of from “about 0.5:1 to about 10:0” and “about 2:1” alcohol:water, respectively.
Deng et al., in a method of regenerating a sorbent discloses usage of 50% ethanol (see p.156, Left-hand col., which is 1:1 ethanol:water). The content of ethanol in water can be optimized/adjusted to 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% (see p. 156, Left-hand col.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention) to perform the method of Heibling et al. in view of the ethanol:water ratios of Deng et al. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being complete regeneration.
Regarding claims 18-20, Hiebling et al. discloses production of cationic CDP adsorbent by polymerizing beta-cyclodextrin with a tetrafluoroterephthalonitrile (see "Figure 36"). Hiebling et al. does not expressly state that it is made by a method of polymerizing beta-cyclodextrin and a compound bearing a cationic functional group, a trimethylammonium group, choline chloride. However, due to the phrase “is prepared by…” renders this limitation a product-by-process which is examined on the merits of the product, not how it is made. While this product is claimed as dependent upon the process made, there is nothing to suggest that the instant product would have different properties, structure or aspects than that in the prior art, absent evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, one of ordinary skilled in the art would find it obvious that prior art product and the instant product would have the same product aspects as that instantly claimed.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) also MPEP 2113.
Claims 3, 5-6, & 18-20 are unpatentable as being obvious over Hiebling et al. in view of Deng et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 10-17 & 23-24 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.
Heibling et al. and Deng et al. disclose the claimed method of removing PFAS from a cationic CDP adsorbent having adsorbed PFAS comprising the process steps as recited in the instant claim 1, however the references do not teach the additional claim features as further defined in these claims.
There would be no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Citations
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
US 12,017,200 B2 (relates to a method for removing polyfluorinated organic compounds from water by use of an adsorbent).
Conclusion
8. Claims 1-30 are pending. Claims 1-30 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
September 02, 2026
Prosecution Insights