DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 were subject to a restriction requirement in the office action mailed 5/15/2026
Applicant filed a response, elected claims 1-13 without traverse, cancelled claims 14-20, and added claims 21-27 filed on 8/14/2026
Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are pending, of claims 25-27 are withdrawn
Claims 1-13 and 21-24 are rejected
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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 8/14/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Applicant elected claims 1-13 without traverse in the response filed 8/14/2026. While the applicant canceled Group II, claims 14-20, and added new claims 21-27, new claims 25-27 are drawn to an unelected invention and are therefore withdrawn without traverse based on the election of Group I without traverse.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 9, 12-13, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franz et al., Development and Evaluation of Polyethylene as Solidification Agent for Low-Level Waste (Franz) taken in view of evidence by Netzsch.com, PE-LD: Polyethylene Low Density (Netzsch.com).
6. Regarding claim 1, Franz teaches a polyethylene solidification process, using an extrusion system (i.e. a method) (Franz, Abstract);
wherein ion exchange resin beads were used to simulate reactor resins (i.e. radioactive waste material) (Franz, p. 3, paragraph 3);
wherein actual reactor resin waste is chemically loaded (Franz, p. 3, paragraph 3) and radioactive tracers were incorporated into the waste (i.e. radioactive waste material) (Franz, p. 5, paragraph 1).
wherein prior to processing with polyethylene, the resins were dried (Franz, p. 3, paragraph 3) to produce a dry waste material (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 2).
Franz further teaches an extrusion process for solidification of radioactive waste in polyethylene (Franz, p. 4, first paragraph);
wherein a polyethylene binder (i.e. polymeric material) and the dry waste materials (i.e. radioactive waste material) are transferred and stored in the extruder feed throat and metering of waste-to-binder ratios is accomplished (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 2) to produce a mixture (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 3) (i.e. combining an amount of radioactive waste material with an amount of a polymeric material to produce a mixture);
wherein the mixture is pre-heated at a temperature below the polyethylene melting point (i.e. heating the mixture at below a melting temperature of the polymeric material to produce a heated mixture) (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 3) as a waste binder-mixture (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 4);
wherein the polyethylene binder is a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 7)
wherein LDPE has a melting temperature of 100 to 115 °C (Tm) (Netzsch.com, p. 2, Properties) and a glass transition temperature (Tg) of -130 to -100 or -30 to -10 °C, as evidenced by Netzsch.com (Netzsch.com, p. 2, Properties).
Given the mixture is conveyed through a heated cylinder, wherein the mixture is pre-heated at a temperature below the polyethylene melting point (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 3), the polyethylene used is low-density polyethylene (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 7), and given Franz does not disclose the temperature of the mixture being under a room temperature, i.e., above the Tg of LDPE, it is clear that the temperature of the LDPE would necessarily be below its Tm and above its Tg heating temperature.
Franz further teaches as the waste-binder mixture moves past the pre-heating zone (i.e. a heated mixture) it is masticated under pressure due to the compressive screw and cylinder (i.e. applying an amount of pressure to the heated mixture) (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 5)
wherein gradual transfer of thermal energy by the combined effects of the barrel heaters and frictional heat serves to melt the polyethylene (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 5) to produce a thermoplastic-waste mixture is forced through an output die into a mold and is allowed to cool and solidify (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 5) as a waste form (i.e. produce a waste form that includes the radioactive waste material encapsulated in the polymeric material) (Franz, p. 4, Waste Form Stability Evaluation).
7. Regarding claim 2, actual reactor resin waste (i.e. a sorbent material) are chemically loaded (i.e. radioactive waste material) (Franz, p. 3, paragraph 3)
wherein radioactive tracers were incorporated into the waste (i.e. radioactive waste material includes sorbent material loaded with one or more isotopes) (Franz, p. 5, paragraph 1).
8. Regarding claim 9, Franz further teaches the waste-binder mixture is masticated under pressure (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 4) with the extrusion process for solidification of radioactive waste in polyethylene (i.e. an extrusion process) (Franz, p. 4, first paragraph).
9. Regarding claim 12, ion exchange resin beads were used to simulate reactor resins (i.e. radioactive waste material) (Franz, p. 3, paragraph 3)
wherein the resin bead particle sizes range between 0.5 to 1.0 mm in diameter (Franz, p. 3, paragraph 3), which falls within the claimed range.
10. Regarding claim 13, Franz further teaches the mixture is pre-heated (i.e. performing preprocessing of the mixture before applying the amount of pressure) at a temperature below the polyethylene melting point (i.e. heating the mixture at below a melting temperature of the polymeric material to produce a heated mixture) (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 3) as a waste binder-mixture (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 4);
wherein the polyethylene binder is a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 7)
wherein LDPE has a melting temperature of 100 to 115 °C (Tm) (Netzsch.com, p. 2, Properties) and a glass transition temperature (Tg) of -130 to -100 or -30 to -10 °C, as evidenced by Netzsch.com (Netzsch.com, p. 2, Properties).
Given Franz does not disclose the temperature of the mixture being under a room temperature, i.e., above the Tg of LDPE, it is clear that the temperature of the LDPE would necessarily be below its Tm (i.e. 100 to 115 °C) and above room temperature (i.e. 21 °C), wherein no additional pressure is added (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 3) (i.e. an additional amount of pressure of 0 MPA), which falls within the claimed range.
11. Regarding claim 22, given the waste form (Franz, p. 4, Waste Form Stability Evaluation)
in Franz is formed by the raw material and method of making the waste form, namely, a polyethylene binder (i.e. polymeric material) and the dry waste materials (i.e. radioactive waste material) are mixed to produce a mixture (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 3), the mixture is pre-heated at a temperature below the polyethylene melting point (i.e. heating the mixture at below a melting temperature of the polymeric material to produce a heated mixture) (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 3) as a waste binder-mixture (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 4), the waste-binder mixture moves past the pre-heating zone (i.e. a heated mixture) it is masticated under pressure due to the compressive screw and cylinder (i.e. applying an amount of pressure to the heated mixture) (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 5), and the thermoplastic-waste mixture forced through an output die into a mold and is allowed to cool and solidify (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 5) as a waste form (i.e. produce a waste form that includes the radioactive waste material encapsulated in the polymeric material), are substantially identical to the materials (Spec, [0018], Spec, [0064], Spec [0067]) and method of producing (Spec, [0017]) a waste form that includes the radioactive waste material encapsulated in the polymeric material, therefore, it is clear that the process of Franz would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed “waste form has an amount of open porosity no greater than 1% by volume for a total volume of the waste form.”
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
12. Regarding claim 23, Franz further teaches homogeneous extruded mixtures were solidified in cylindrical molds, yielding samples of approximately 4.8 cm diameter x 9 cm high (i.e. a height of 9 cm) (Franz, p. 4, Sample Fabrication), which falls within the claimed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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 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.
14. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz et al., Development and Evaluation of Polyethylene as Solidification Agent for Low-Level Waste (Franz) taken in view of evidence by Netzsch.com, PE-LD: Polyethylene Low Density (Netzsch.com).
15. Regarding claim 7, given Franz does not disclose the temperature of the mixture being under a room temperature, i.e., above the Tg of LDPE, it is clear that the temperature of the LDPE would necessarily be below its Tm (i.e. 100 to 115 °C) (Netzsch.com, p. 2, Properties) and above room temperature (i.e. 21 °C) (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 3), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
16. Regarding claim 10, Franz further teaches the actual reactor resin waste (i.e. a sorbent material) are ion exchange resin beads (i.e. radioactive waste material) (Franz, p. 3, paragraph 3);
wherein a maximum waste loading of the ion exchange resin beads (i.e. radioactive waste material) is 65 wt. % (i.e. 0 - 65 wt. % of radioactive waste material) in the waste forms including polyethylene (i.e. 100 – 35 wt. % of radioactive material) (Franz, p. 5, Table 1);
wherein the ion exchange resin beads have a density of about 1.21 g/cm3 and approximately 58 percent moisture by weight (i.e. wet density of ion exchange resin beads) (Franz, p. 3, paragraph 3) and the polyethylene has a density of 0.924 g/cm3 (Franz, p. 5, Table 1);
wherein prior to processing with polyethylene, the ion exchange resin beads were dried (i.e. remove presence of moisture) (Franz, p. 3, paragraph 3);
wherein the ion exchange resin beads after drying (i.e. wet density of ion exchange resin beads) have a dry density of about 0.77 g/cm3 (see math below);
moisture content ratio = ~58% / 100 = ~0.58
dry density = (~1.21 g/cm3 wet density / (1 + ~ 0.58)) ≈ 0.77 g/cm3
wherein the polyethylene (i.e. polymeric material) has a volume in the waste form of 108 mL (i.e. 100 wt.% * (1 g / 1 wt. %) * (1 cm3 / 0.924 g) * (1 mL / 1 cm3)) to 38 mL (i.e. 35 wt.% * (1 g / 1 wt. %) * (1 cm3 / 0.924 g) * (1 mL / 1 cm3));
wherein the dried ion exchange resin beads (i.e. radioactive waste material) have a volume in the waste form of 0 mL (i.e. 0 wt.% * (1 g / 1 wt. %) * (1 cm3 / ~0.77 g) * (1 mL / 1 cm3)) to about 84 mL (i.e. 65 wt.% * (1 g / 1 wt. %) * (1 cm3 / ~0.77 g) * (1 mL / 1 cm3));
wherein the waste form formed by the waste binder-mixture (i.e. the mixture) has a 0% (i.e. 0 mL dried ion exchange resin beads / (108 mL polyethylene + 0 mL dried ion exchange resin beads) * 100) to about 69% (i.e. 84 mL dried ion exchange resin beads / (38 mL polyethylene + ~84 mL dried ion exchange resin beads) * 100) by volume of dried ion exchange resin beads (i.e. radioactive waste material) and 100% (i.e. 108 mL polyethylene / (108 mL polyethylene + 0 mL dried ion exchange resin beads) * 100) to about 31% (i.e. 38 mL polyethylene / (38 mL polyethylene + ~84 mL dried ion exchange resin beads)*100) by volume of polyethylene (i.e. polymeric material), which overlap with the claimed ranges.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
17. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matyas et al., Silica-based waste form for immobilization of iodine from reprocessing plant off-gas streams (Matyas).
Regarding claim 3, Franz does not teach the radioactive waste material includes sorbent material loaded with radioactive iodine.
With respect to the difference, Matyas teaches sequestration of iodine compounds with a durable SiO2-based waste form (i.e. method to produce a waste form) with silver-functionalized silica aerogel (Ag0 -aerogel) (i.e. sorbent) (Matyas, Abstract)
wherein the Ag0-aerogel (i.e. sorbent) was loaded with iodine from the off-gas of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant (Matyas, Abstract), such as radioiodine (129I) (i.e. sorbent material loaded with radioactive iodine) (Matyas, p. 255, left column, first paragraph).
Matyas expressly teaches release of various radionuclides into the off-gas system such as 129I are of a particular concern because of its long half-life (1.6 x 107 years) and high mobility in the environment (Matyas, p. 255, left column, first paragraph)
wherein under current U.S. regulations 129I must be captured and immobilized into a durable waste form for long-term storage in a geological disposal facility (Matyas, p. 255, right column, first paragraph).
Franz and Matyas are analogous art as they are all drawn to removal of radioactive substances as waste forms.
In light of the motivation for radionuclides such as 129I are of a particular concern as disclosed by Matyas, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include loading with iodine from the off-gas of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant (Matyas, Abstract), such as radioiodine (129I) in the polyethylene solidification process, using an extrusion system of Franz, in order to achieve successful 129I capture and immobilization into a durable waste form for long-term storage in a geological disposal facility under current U.S. regulations, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
18. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Matyas.
19. Regarding claims 4 and 5, Franz does not teach (a) the sorbent material includes at least one of metal-exchanged zeolite sorbents, Ag-loaded aerogels, or Ag-loaded xerogels and (b) the sorbent material includes at least one of silver mordenite or silver functionalized silica aerogel.
With respect to difference (a), Matyas further teaches the Ag0-aerogel (i.e. Ag-loaded aerogels) was loaded with iodine from the off-gas of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant (Matyas, Abstract), such as radioiodine (129I) (i.e. sorbent material is an Ag-loaded aerogel) (Matyas, p. 255, left column, first paragraph).
Matyas expressly teaches a primary option for the removal and sequestration of iodine compounds from the off-gas of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant is silver-functionalized
silica aerogel (Ag0-aerogel) (Matyas, p. 256, left column, first paragraph)
wherein Ag0-aerogel exhibits excellent sorption properties for iodine (Matyas, p. 256, left column, first paragraph) and retains high selectivity and sorption capacity for iodine even after a long-term exposure to dry/humid air (Matyas, p. 256, left column, first paragraph).
In light of the motivation for a primary option for the removal and sequestration of iodine compounds from the off-gas of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant is silver-functionalized silica aerogel (Ag0-aerogel) as disclosed by Matyas, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Ag0-aerogel (i.e. Ag-loaded aerogels) loaded with iodine from the off-gas of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant (Matyas, Abstract), such as radioiodine (129I) (i.e. sorbent material is an Ag-loaded aerogel) in the polyethylene solidification process, using an extrusion system of Franz, in order to achieve a sorbent that exhibits excellent sorption properties for iodine, retains high selectivity, and retains sorption capacity for iodine even after a long-term exposure to dry/humid air, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to difference (b) Matyas further teaches Ag0-aerogel is a silver-functionalized silica aerogel (i.e. sorbent material includes a silver-functionalized aerogel) (Matyas, p. 256, left column, first paragraph).
20. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Quapp et al. (US 6166390 A) (Quapp).
21. Regarding claim 6, Franz does not further teach the polymeric material includes at least one of polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene terephthalate glycol, polysulfonate, polyether sulfonate, polyethylenimine, polyether ether ketone, polycarbonate, polydiallyl phthalate, or polyacrylonitrile.
With respect to the difference, Quapp teaches a composition for use as a radiation shield containing a stable uranium (i.e. radioactive waste material) aggregate (i.e. waste form) for attenuating gamma rays and a neutron absorbing component (Quapp, Abstract);
wherein in the stable uranium aggregate (Quapp, Abstract) reactive forms of uranium are coated with a protective coating (i.e. encapsulated in a coating) (Quapp, column 4, lines 36-40);
wherein the coating materials include polymers (i.e. polymeric materials) such as polyethylene or polyacrylonitrile (i.e. encapsulated in polyethylene or polyacrylonitrile) (Quapp, column 5, lines 19-21).
Franz and Quapp are analogous art as they are all drawn to treatment of radioactive waste material.
In light of the disclosure of Quapp of the equivalence and interchangeability of using polyethylene as disclosed in Franz, with polyacrylonitrile as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polyacrylonitrile as a coating material (i.e. encapsulating a radioactive material) in Franz, in order to achieve a stable uranium (i.e. radioactive waste material) aggregate (i.e. waste form) for attenuating gamma rays and a neutron absorbing component, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
22. Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arnold et al., Polyethylene Solidification of Low-Level Wastes (Arnold).
23. Regarding claim 8, Franz teaches the waste-binder mixture moves past the pre-heating zone (i.e. heated mixture) it is masticated under pressure (Franz, p. 4, paragraph 5).
However, Franz does not further teach the amount of pressure applied to the heated mixture to produce the waste form is from about 0 megapascals (MPa) to about 100 MPa.
With respect to the difference, Arnold teaches solidification of low-level radioactive waste in polyethylene (i.e. polymeric material to produce a waste form (Arnold, Abstract) via encapsulation by polyethylene (Arnold, p. 1, paragraph 4) (i.e. a method of producing a waste form that includes radioactive waste material encapsulated in the polymeric material);
wherein the waste form was produced with a bench scale extruder (i.e. an extrusion process) (Arnold, p. 6, last paragraph);
wherein moderate process pressures in the range of 500-3000 psi for laboratory-scale extruders are desirable (Arnold, p. 22, 4.5.2 Pressure);
wherein the moderate process pressures are in the range of 3.45 (i.e. 500 psi * (1 psi / 145.038 MPA) – 20.7 MPA (i.e. 3000 psi * (1 psi / 145.038 MPA) in the extruder (i.e. extrusion process) (Arnold, p. 22, 4.5.2 Pressure), which falls within the claimed range.
Arnold expressly teaches the moderate process pressures enhance mixing and improve delivery of the material into a mold (Arnold, p. 22, 4.5.2 Pressure)
wherein pressures exceeding design limitations can lead to failure of a rupture disc and/or the extruder screw (Arnold, p. 22, 4.5.2 Pressure).
Franz and Arnold are analogous art as they are all drawn to a polyethylene solidification process, using an extrusion system to produce a waste form.
In light of the motivation for moderate process pressures enhancing mixing and improving delivery of the material into a mold as disclosed by Arnold, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include moderate process pressures in the range of 3.45 (i.e. 500 psi * (1 psi / 145.038 MPa)) – 20.7 MPa (i.e. 3000 psi * (1 psi / 145.038 MPa)) in the extruder (i.e. extrusion process) in the polyethylene solidification process, using an extrusion system of Franz, in order to achieve enhanced mixing, improved delivery of the material into a mold, and avoid failure of the extruder screw, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
24. Regarding claim 11, Franz further does not teach the amount of pressure is applied to the heated mixture for about 1 minute to about 60 minutes to produce the waste form.
With respect to the difference, Arnold further teaches an extruder output rate is defined as the quantity of material which can be processed in any given time (Arnold, p. 21, 4.4.2 Extruder Output Calibration);
wherein maximum output at 80 RPM was 1.7 g/sec, or 6120 g/hour (13.5 lbs./hour) (Arnold, p. 21, 4.4.2 Extruder Output Calibration);
wherein quantity of material delivered (i.e. applying pressure) to the output die in one minute was measured (i.e. applying pressure to the heated mixture for one minute), which falls within the claimed range (Arnold, p. 21, 4.4.2 Extruder Output Calibration).
Arnold expressly a number of processing parameters were identified as being important for successful implementation of the polyethylene solidification system (Arnold, p. 22, 4.5 Processing Parameters);
wherein manipulation of process controls such as process rate (i.e. quantity of material which can be processed in any given time) is required to maintain constant product quality (Arnold, p. 22, 4.5 Processing Parameters);
wherein from the standpoint of process efficiency and ultimate operational costs,
maximum process rates are preferable (Arnold, p. 23, paragraph 8).
In light of the motivation for a number of processing parameters were identified as being important as disclosed by Arnold, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include quantity of material delivered (i.e. applying pressure) to the output die in one minute was measured (i.e. applying pressure to the heated mixture for one minute) in the polyethylene solidification process, using an extrusion system of Franz, in order to maintain constant product quality, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
25. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al., A study on the pelletizing condition for roll compaction of powdered radioactive wastes (Lim) taken in view of evidence by Upmach.com, Pharmaceutical Roller Compactor (Upmach.com).
Regarding claim 21, Franz does not further teach (a) performing a pre-pressing operation with respect to the mixture before heating the mixture and before applying the amount of pressure to the heated mixture (b) wherein the pre-pressing operation takes place at temperatures from 15 °C to 35 °C and (c) at pressures from 10 MPa to 100 MPa.
With respect to differences (a) and (c), Lim teaches dried powder of radioactive wastes (i.e. radioactive waste material) solidified by a solidification agent (Lim, Abstract) such as a cement matrix (Lim, p. 562, left column, paragraph 5) to generate a solidified waste form (i.e. a method of combining amount of radioactive waste material with an amount of material to produce a waste form) (Lim, Abstract);
wherein an example of the solidification agent includes a polymer (i.e. a polymeric material) (Lim, p. 554, left column, first paragraph);
wherein the dried powder of radioactive wastes (Lim, Abstract) underwent pelletizing with a roll compactor (i.e. performing a pre-pressing operation with respect to the radioactive waste material before heating and before applying an amount of pressure) (Lim, p. 558, right column, 3.3.1. Roll compactor - hydraulic pressure) at a maximum hydraulic pressure of 326 kN and a compact surface area 260 cm2 (Lim p. 557, left column, Table 4);
wherein the maximum hydraulic pressure is performed at 12.5 MPa (see math below), which falls within the claimed range.
326 kN * (1000 N / 1 kN) = 326,000 N = 326,000 kg*m / s2
260 cm2 * (1 m / 100 cm)2 = 0.026 m2
(326,000 kg*m / s2) / (0.026 m2) = 12,538,461.54 kg / (m * s2) = 12,538,461.54 Pa
12,538,461.54 Pa * (1 MPa / 1,000,000 Pa) = 12.5 MPa
Lim further teaches roll compaction as a volume reduction method, particularly for contaminated soils (i.e. radioactive waste material), bio-shield concrete (i.e. radioactive waste material), and various sludges (i.e. mixtures) (Lim, p. 3, right column, last paragraph).
Lim expressly teaches roll compaction technology can be used to reduce the physical volume of the powdered wastes measured by volume reduction factor (VRF) (Lim, Abstract);
wherein the VRF and the ratio of the volumes of waste prior to and following compaction are measured (Lim, p. 557, left column, 2.6. Volume reduction factor);
wherein the VRF refers to the method of decreasing physical volume of a waste, and is aimed to facilitate subsequent handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of the waste (Lim, p. 562, left column, 3.5. Evaluation of the volume reduction ratio).
Franz and Lim are analogous art as they are all drawn to methods of solidification for radioactive waste to produce a waste form.
In light of the motivation for roll compaction technology can be used to reduce the physical volume of the powdered wastes measured by volume reduction factor as disclosed by Lim, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include pelletizing with a roll compactor (i.e. performing a pre-pressing operation with respect to the radioactive waste material before heating and before applying an amount of pressure) at maximum hydraulic pressure performed at 12.5 MPa of various sludges (i.e. mixtures), in the polyethylene solidification process using an extrusion system of Franz, in order to facilitate subsequent handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of radioactive waste, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to difference (b), a pharmaceutical roller for compacting (i.e. a roller compacter) would necessarily have usage conditions with temperature < 35℃ as evidenced by Upmach.com (Upmach.com, p. 3, paragraph 1), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
26 Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matyas and Quapp.
27. Regarding claim 24, Franz does not further teach (a) the radioactive waste material includes sorbent material loaded with one or more radioisotopes of iodine, (b) the sorbent material includes at least one of silver mordenite or silver functionalized silica aerogel, (c) an amount of the one or more radioisotopes included in the waste form is from 10% by weight to 25% by weight of a total weight of the waste form, and (d) the polymeric material includes polyacrylonitrile.
With respect to differences (a) and (b), Matyas further teaches the Ag0-aerogel (i.e. Ag-loaded aerogels) was loaded with iodine from the off-gas of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant (Matyas, Abstract), such as radioiodine (129I) (i.e. sorbent material is an Ag-loaded aerogel and a silver functionalized silica aerogel) (Matyas, p. 255, left column, first paragraph).
In light of the motivation for a primary option for (a) radionuclides such as 129I are of a particular concern and (b) the removal and sequestration of iodine compounds from the off-gas of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant is silver-functionalized silica aerogel (Ag0-aerogel) as disclosed by Matyas, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include (a) loading with iodine from the off-gas of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, such as radioiodine and (b) Ag0-aerogel (i.e. Ag-loaded aerogels) was loaded with iodine from the off-gas of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant (Matyas, Abstract), such as radioiodine (129I) (i.e. sorbent material is an Ag-loaded aerogel) in the polyethylene solidification process, using an extrusion system of Franz, in order to achieve (a) successful 129I capture and immobilization into a durable waste form for long-term storage in a geological disposal facility under current U.S. regulations and (b) a sorbent that exhibits excellent sorption properties for iodine, retains high selectivity, and retains sorption capacity for iodine even after a long-term exposure to dry/humid air, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to difference (c), Matyas further teaches Ag0-aerogel with a loading of 20.2 mass% iodine (Matyas, Abstract) and a fully densified sample (Matyas, p. 258, right column, last paragraph) with ~22 mass% of iodine (Matyas, p. 259, left column, first paragraph), which falls within the claimed range.
Matyas expressly teaches release of iodine will be limited by the physical barrier provided by the encapsulating silica matrix (Matyas, p. 259, left column, first paragraph)
wherein lack of open porosity and 100% retention of iodine in the consolidated product indicated that for iodine loadings ~20 mass% there will be no need for additives to enhance a sintering process (Matyas, p. 259, left column, first paragraph).
In light of the motivation for release of iodine will be limited by the physical barrier provided by the encapsulating silica matrix as disclosed by Matyas, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Ag0-aerogel with a loading of 20.2 mass% iodine or ~22 mass% of iodine in the polyethylene solidification process, using an extrusion system of Franz, in order to achieve a lack of open porosity, 100% retention of iodine, and no need for additives to enhance a sintering process, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to difference (d), Quapp further teaches the coating materials include polymers (i.e. polymeric materials) such as polyethylene or polyacrylonitrile (i.e. encapsulated in polyethylene or polyacrylonitrile) (Quapp, column 5, lines 19-21).
Franz, Quapp, and Matyas are analogous art as they are all drawn to treatment of radioactive waste material.
In light of the disclosure of Quapp of the equivalence and interchangeability of using polyethylene as disclosed in Franz, with polyacrylonitrile as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polyacrylonitrile as a coating material (i.e. encapsulating a radioactive material) in Franz, in order to achieve a stable uranium (i.e. radioactive waste material) aggregate (i.e. waste form) for attenuating gamma rays and a neutron absorbing component, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 a.m. - 5:00 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 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
