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 .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on March 18, 2024, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, claims 3, 4, 6, and 8 have been amended to eliminate multiple claim dependency.
No claims have been canceled or added; claims 1-11 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 1, “treating a regenerating an adsorbent media” should be amended to recite either “treating and generating an adsorbent media” (see line 9 of claim 1), or “treating and regenerating an adsorbent media” (see line 1 of claim 9).
In line 6 of claim 1, “sealing the reactor to from ingress or egress of gas” should be amended to recite “sealing the reactor from ingress or egress of gas”.
In line 9 of claim 1, “adsorbent material” should be amended to recite “adsorbent media”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-11 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.
Claims 4 and 5 (and claims 6-8 depending directly or indirectly therefrom) are indefinite for lacking antecedent basis for the limitation “absorbent media”. Claims 1 and 3, from which claims 4 and 5 directly or indirectly depend, recite the limitation “adsorbent media”.
Claim 9 is (and claims 10 and 11 depending therefrom are) indefinite due to a discrepancy between “absorbent material” in line 1, and “adsorbent material” in line 3.
Claims 6-8, 10, and 11 do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of claims 4, 5, and 9, and are thus rejected for the same rationale.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickelsen et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0297926) in view of Strathmann et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0155885, Applicants’ submitted art).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Nickelsen et al. teach a sustainable method for removing and concentrating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from water. The method includes selecting an anion exchange resin configured to remove PFAS and provide treated water, adding the selected anion exchange resin (“ion exchange resin”) to an anion exchange vessel, introducing a flow of water contaminated with PFAS to a vessel such that the PFAS bind to the selected anion exchange resin and are thereby removed from the water (“PFAS-contaminated adsorbent material”), introducing an optimized regenerant solution to the anion exchange vessel to remove the PFAS from the anion exchange resin thereby regenerating the anion exchange resin and generating a spent regenerant solution comprised of removed PFAS and the optimized regenerant solution, and subjecting the spent regenerant solution to a separation and recovery process to recover the optimized regenerant solution for reuse and separate and concentrate the removed PFAS. See paragraphs [0016], [0018] and [0029] of Nickelsen et al.
Nickelsen et al. teach that the regenerant solution may include a mixture of a salt or a base, a solvent, and water, wherein the solvent may include an alcohol. See paragraphs [0015] and [0030] of Nickelsen et al., the latter of which teaches that the base may be sodium hydroxide, and that the alcohol may be methanol.
Regarding claim 9, Nickelsen et al. teach a system for removing and concentrating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from water. Said system includes a regenerant solution line that is coupled to an anion exchange vessel to introduce an optimized regenerant solution to the anion exchange vessel to remove the PFAS from the anion exchange resin, thereby regenerating the anion exchange resin and generating a spent regenerant solution comprised of the removed PFAS and the optimized regenerant solution. See paragraphs [0014] and [0030] of Nickelsen et al., as well as Figure 3 and paragraphs [0032]-[0035], which depicts a separation and recovery subsystem for the optimized regenerant solution.
Nickelsen et al. do not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding (a) the steps of increasing the temperature within the reactor to greater than about 200°C and less than about 500°C, wherein the temperature and pressure within the reactor are at the critical point of water, maintaining an elevated temperature for a time sufficient to at least partially mineralize the PFAS and generate an adsorbent material substantially free of PFAS, and (b) the system comprising a reactor adapted to (i) heat a combination of an adsorbent material, PFAS, and an alkaline substance to a temperature of greater than about 200°C and less than about 500°C, (ii), maintain a pressure within the reactor of about 220 atmospheres, and (iii) hold the aforementioned combination in a heated and pressure for a time sufficient to at least partially mineralize the PFAS to remove the PFAS from the adsorbent material, thereby regenerating the adsorbent material, wherein said system additionally includes a device for mixing the contents of the reactor and is configured to separate the regenerated adsorbent material from the mineralized PFAS, as recited in claims 1-3 and 9-11.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Strathmann et al. teach a method for hydrothermally treating PFAS, wherein PFAS is combined with an amendment (examples of which include NaOH, Ca(OH)2, Na2CO3, KOH, NH4OH, and Mg(OH)2, as well as methanol, and isopropanol) and a co-solvent in a reactor, followed by sealing and pressurizing the reactor to hydrothermal conditions (“sealing the reactor…from ingress or egress of gas”), wherein the reactor is “typically sealed such that the combination of PFAS and amendment can increase in both pressure and temperature”. The hydrothermal conditions can be approximately 200-374°C and a pressure of approximately 2-22 MPa (19.738-217.123 atm). The hydrothermal conditions are “held for a specified time to allow the PFAS to be at least partially mineralized into a treated combination of products of the reaction between the PFAs and amendment.” See paragraphs [0046]-[0049] and claims 11 and 12 of Strathmann et al.
Regarding claim 3, it is considered that because Strathmann et al. teach both a method and hydrothermal conditions comparable to the method recited in Applicants’ claims, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the conditions disclosed in this reference to result in a reactor having within a temperature and pressure at the critical point of water, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 9, Strathmann et al. teach a system for the aforementioned hydrothermal treatment of PFAS, said system comprising a reactor for housing the PFAS and the alkaline amendment, wherein the reactor includes a device for maintaining the reactor pressure and heaters or other devices for maintaining the reactor temperature, and can hold the PFAS and alkaline amendment for hold times depending on the PFAS to be mineralized, the amendment added, and the temperature and pressure at which the combination is held. See paragraphs [0047]–[0050] of Strathmann et al.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Strathmann et al. further teach that the aforementioned system may include agitators (“device for missing the contents of the reactor”), and may also include means for discharging the reactor contents for further processing or disposal. See paragraphs [0047] and [0053] of Strathmann et al.
In view of the teachings of both Nickelsen et al. and Strathmann et al. regarding the treatment of PFAS with solutions comprising a base (e.g., sodium hydroxide) and a co-solvent (e.g., methanol), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the method and system of Nickelsen et al. by incorporating therein the method and system disclosed in Strathmann et al., which has been shown to be useful to “users of existing technology for treating PFAS-impacted groundwater such as ion exchange, which generates PFAS-contaminated concentrate streams when the resins are regenerated.” See paragraph [0072] of Strathmann et al.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickelsen et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0297926) in view of Strathmann et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0155885, Applicants’ submitted art). as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Pinkard et al. (WO 2022/155271).
The combined teachings of Nickelsen et al. and Strathmann et al. are relied upon with respect to claims 1 and 4, as stated above. Additionally, as stated above, both Nickelsen et al. and Strathmann et al. teach the limitations of claims 6-8 regarding the employment of alkaline substances, e.g., NaOH, and co-solvents. See paragraph [0030] of Nickelsen et al., and paragraphs [0046] and [0054] of Strathmann et al.
However, neither Nickelsen et al. nor Strathmann et al. teach or suggest the limitations of claim 5 regarding the employment of activated carbon as absorbent/adsorbent media.
Regarding claim 5, Pinkard et al. teach a method for destroying perfluoroalkyl and/or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) using a continuous hydrothermal alkaline hydrolysis process, wherein liquid byproducts (e.g., a solution containing an alcohol, water, a salt or a base, and the PFAS, or a substance produced during the regeneration or reactivation of adsorbent media, said adsorbent media including ion exchange resins or granular activated carbon are reacted with water and an alkaline amendment in a continuous reactor to hydrolyze the contaminant or contaminants. Examples of the alkaline amendment include NaOH, KOH, LiOH, NH4OH, and CaOH2; an exemplary alcohol is methanol. See Figures 2 and 3, page 12, lines 10, 11, and 22-24, page 13, lines 24-26 and 29-33, and page 14, lines 3-15 and 26-30 of Pinkard et al.
The continuous reactor is operated at a temperature ranging from 200°C to 400°C, and a pressure ranging from 0.1 to 50 MPa (0.9869-493.4616 atm). Pinkard et al. further teach the feasibility in maintaining the pressure above 22.1 MPa (218.11 atm); see page 15, lines 16-19 of Pinkard et al.
In view of the similarities between Nickelsen et al., Strathmann et al., and Pinkard et al. regarding the treatment of PFAS substances with alkaline substances under comparable conditions, and because Pinkard et al. teach ion exchange resins and granular activated carbon as functionally equivalent adsorbent media in the treatment of solutions containing PFAS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the method taught by Nickelsen et al. in view of Strathmann et al. by substituting the anion exchange resin in Nickelsen et al. with granular activated carbon, as Pinkard et al. teach ion exchange resins and granular activated carbon as functionally equivalent adsorbent media. See also MPEP 2144.06(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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 (Coris) 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 March 10, 2026