DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 21-23, 25-33 and 35-41 are pending. Claims 40-41 are new, and Claims 1-20, 24 and 34 are canceled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 19 November 2025, regarding the respective rejections of claims 21-39 under 35 U.S.C. 103 using Barry et al. (herein referred to as “Barry”, US Pat Pub. 2013/0140244) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant has amended the claims to further clarify and narrow the scope of the claims in particular by requiring “repeating the subject/treating until the PFAS is lower than a threshold level”; upon further consideration of the applicant’s arguments and amendments, the grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
However, while said grounds of rejection are withdrawn, said grounds were based on the limitations regarding the optional language with respect to PFAs or fluoride/fluorine—which opened for the possibility that prior art references that did not necessarily require PFAs could read on the instant claims. Although the amendments have narrowed the scope of the claims to eliminate that interpretation, much of the optional claim language including fluoride/fluorine has been left in the claim language--thus subjecting the claims to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Said grounds of rejection are detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 41, which is new as of this filing, claims the seafood grown in the aquarium of Claim 40. After further consideration, this limitation is considered new matter as defined by 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as the growth of seafood by the method of Claim 21 is not disclosed in the originally filed specification, claims or drawings. While the specification does disclose that fish may flourish due to levels of ammonia, nitrites and nitrate produced by the method (Paragraph [0095] of the pre-grant publication, US Pat Pub. 2024/0150204 for reference), the reference does not actually grow seafood—only water with a quality more conducive to growing fish. See that the test in example 1/Paragraph [0095] is only for water quality levels and not the growth of fish itself. Applicant is urged to address this issue in the response to this Office action.
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 21-23, 25-33 and 35-41 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. Independent Claims 21 and 31, upon which the remaining claims are respectively dependent, have been amended to further require “repeating the subjecting/treating (in Claim 31’s case) until the PFAs is lower than a threshold level”. This limitation is however considered indefinite because it contradicts other parts of Claims 21 and 31 with respect to the level of testing of fluoride/fluorine instead of PFAS. Note that both Claims 21 and 31 allow for the testing of fluoride/fluorine instead of PFAS, including in both the first and second samples (note that the second water sample testing described in Claim 31, with the “PFAS fluoride/fluorine” and the hanging “or” at the end were interpreted to provide for the testing of fluoride/fluorine similar to the first test). The amended limitation of question therefore is unclear on what should occur if fluoride/fluorine is tested for in the samples instead of PFAS, whether only PFAS should be tested or the threshold level stands for fluoride/fluorine as well. Applicant is urged to address this issue in the response to this Office action. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume after considering the amendment only to consider PFAS with respect to the instant claims.
Claim 41 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 41 recites the seafood grown in the aquarium claimed in Claim 40 comprising liquid from the method of Claim 21. Since the application does not disclose the growth of seafood using the method of Claim 21, the claims are additionally unclear on how seafood can grow using the method steps of Claim 21. For instance, Claim 21 is silent on seafood components such as eggs, nutrition, fish, vegetation or the like. Applicant is urged to address this issue in the response to this Office action. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will not give this claim patentable weight at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moore et al. (herein referred to as “Moore”, US Pat Pub. 2023/0271857) recites an improved apparatus and method for mediation of PFAS contamination in an environment that is similar in scope to the instant application (Abstract, in particular the electronic separator and its configuration). However, the reference only recites titanium dioxide as a catalyst for the production of hydroxyl radicals (Paragraph [0153]) and actually teaches against titanium dioxide’s use as an anode (Paragraph [0375]; Paragraph [0413]; see that titanium dioxide is produced as a residue/precipitate byproduct after operation) and is silent on photocatalysis. No ground of rejection can therefore be made over this reference.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:30pm CT.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 12/05/2025