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 amendments and arguments filed February 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
The indefiniteness rejection has been updated in light of the amendments to the claims. Some indefiniteness rejections have been withdrawn, some maintained and new rejections presented.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been considered but are deemed This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
In the response, it was argued that the claimed “amount of oxidant” limitation is not indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would know “freshman chemistry” to obtain the amount of oxidant needed (see Response pages 5-6). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
The amount of oxidant is based upon an unknown element, i.e. the quantity of all of the combinable oxidizable species, which includes PFAS and optionally other species that are oxidized with the oxidant. The claimed “needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species” limitation remains an unknown quantity. Hence, this argument is deemed unpersuasive since one of ordinary skill in the art could not determine the composition of the initial aqueous composition. Furthermore, the as-originally filed specification is silent to what “other species” would be.
Secondly, the stoichiometry of the reactions, as presented in the Response, fails to consider the following:
The level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art is not a “freshman chemistry” student.
A determination of which species are oxidizable are present in the initial aqueous solution has not been established. This is an unknown element. Furthermore, this unknown element is not readily apparent since no species are named in the as-originally filed specification.
The stoichiometry is far from clear because the oxidants could create secondary radicals which are responsible for oxidizing the unknown species.
One of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would not be able to practice the claimed method without first performing complex experiments to determine the unknown element(s) and indefinite limitation(s). Applicant’s arguments are an oversimplification of the indefinite nature of the claimed subject matter. In the response, it was argued that the claimed method “surprisingly discovered that hydrogen embrittlement occurs and that hydrogen embrittlement can be avoided by operating the SCWO reaction with an excess of oxidant which prevents the formation of nascent hydrogen” (see Response pages 6-7). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. This argument is deemed unpersuasive because evidence of unexpected results, an explanation of how the evidenced offered is unexpected from the prior art and/or criticality of the claimed parameters has not been established. Evidence of unexpected result must establish that “the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance”, “commensurate in scope with the claims” and “applicant must identify the cause of the unexpectedly superior activity or property (compared to the prior art) in the end product and establish a nexus” between the unexpected results and the claimed features (see MPEP 716.02(b)). Applicant has not presented evidence of unexpected result , has not established that “the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance”, “commensurate in scope with the claims” and identify the cause of the unexpectedly superior activity or property. Further, the “arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record” (see MPEP 716.01, C, II).
In the response, it was argued that the Examiner’s motivation for establishing obviousness (see Office Action page 8/paragraph 23) was flawed because “there would not have been a motivation to operate such ‘that the of oxidant is at least 5% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species.’ Thus, the claimed invention is not obvious over the cited references (see Response page 7). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. The Office Action states “Modified US 483 discloses controlling conditions within the reaction vessel such that the aqueous solution is in a supercritical state and that the amount of oxidant is at least 5% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species (see US 483 paragraph 0017, 0051-0054; see US 317 paragraphs 0039, 0045, 0049)” and “In the alternative, if modified US 483 does not disclose a “at least 5% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by modified US 483” (see Office Action page 8 paragraphs 21-23). Also, the claimed “amount of oxidant” is an indefinite feature since it is based upon an unknown element, i.e. the quantity of all of the combinable oxidizable species, which includes PFAS and optionally other species that are oxidized with the oxidant.
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 1-16 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, line 6 and line 11, recites “the aqueous solution”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite. It is unclear if “the aqueous solution” is the same as or separate and distinct from the “initial aqueous solution comprising water and PFAS”. It is unclear if the “aqueous solution” is a new solution that is formed in the reaction vessel after the water and PFAs and the oxidant are provided within said reactor vessel. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claimed “aqueous solution” may be understood to be the same as the claimed “initial aqueous solution comprising water and PFAS” or may be a solution that comprises the claimed water and PFAS and the oxidant”, wherein the claimed water may or may not comprise “other species that oxidize”.
Claim 1 recites “the aqueous solution may, optionally, comprise other species that oxidize by contact with the oxidant under supercritical conditions” and “controlling conditions within the reaction vessel such that the aqueous solution is in a supercritical state and that the amount of oxidant is at least 5% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because the claimed element “the amount of oxidant” is based upon an unknown element “that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species”.
One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the “amount of oxidant” because it is unclear what “other species” may or may not be present. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art does not know what “other species” are oxidizable in the initial aqueous solution since no other species have been claimed. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the claimed amount of oxidant being “at least 5% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species”. The as-originally filed specification is silent to what “other species” would be.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 3-21 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
Claim 3 recites “the method maintains at least at least 95%”. Claim 3 is deemed indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 3 is understood as “the method maintains at least 95%”
Claim 4 recites “relative to a method having identical conditions but having 95% or less of the amount of oxidant needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species; the method shows a reduction in hydrogen embrittlement of at least 10%”. Claim 4 is deemed indefinite. The claimed element “a reduction in hydrogen embrittlement of at least 10%” is based upon an unknown element “a method having identical conditions but having 95% or less of the amount of oxidant needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species”. It is unclear what “a method” is. Claim 5 is deemed indefinite for similar reasoning.
Claim 13 recites “transferring heat from the clean hot water solution to the aqueous solution in a heat exchanger in a preheating step”. Claim 13 is deemed indefinite. Claim 13, which is dependent upon claim 1, is deemed indefinite because the claimed method does not recite a preheating step and/or a heat exchanger. That is, claim 13 further comprises a transferring step. However, claim 1 and claim 13 do not recite a preheating step comprising a heat exchanger. Hence, a relationship between the preheating step/heat exchanger and claimed method/the reactor vessel is deemed indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “the amount of oxidant is at least 20 greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species”. Claim 14 is deemed indefinite because the claimed percentage range is based upon an unknown element, i.e. “all of the combined oxidizable species”, which may be solely PFAS or PFAS and one or more other specie(s).
Claim 15 recites “the amount of oxidant is 5 to 200% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species”. Claim 15 is deemed indefinite. The claimed element “the amount of oxidant” is based upon an unknown element “all of the combined oxidizable species”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2022/0041483 A1 (hereinafter US 483) in view of US 20050006317 A1 (hereinafter US 317), as evidenced by Alloy Digest - Data on World Wide Metals and Alloys - HASTELLOY* Alloy C-276 (Corrosion and Heat Resisting Alloy).</i> ASM International. Retrieved from <br>https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt013MGHKJ/alloy-digest-data-world/unclassifi-hastelloy-alloy (retrieved September 25, 2025; issued May 1971) (hereinafter Alloy Digest).
Regarding claim 1, US 483 discloses a method of destroying PFAS under SCWO conditions (see US 483 abstract and paragraphs 0009, 0011).
US 483 discloses providing an initial aqueous solution comprising water and PFAS; passing the initial aqueous solution comprising water and PFAS and an oxidant into a reaction vessel (see US 483 paragraphs 0009, 0011, 0016, 0040, 0049 and figure 1).
US 483 discloses “the reactor vessel is a cylindrical pipe formed of a corrosion resistant material” (see US 483 paragraph 0049). US 483 does not disclose the reaction vessel comprises metal walls.
US 317 discloses a supercritical water system and method for degrading/removing organic contaminants from water to purify water (see US 317 abstract and paragraphs 0018-0026, 0033, 0043). US 317 discloses that the “SCWR (201) is typically a vessel constructed according to known high pressure design codes of Hastelloy—C276, Inconel, or other suitable material” (see US 317 paragraph 0042). As evidenced by Alloy Digest, Hastelloy C-276 is a metal material composed of nickel, molybdenum chromium, iron, tungsten, cobalt, manganese, vanadium, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur and carbon (see Alloy Digest page 1).
US 317 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. supercritical water reactor and/or water purification and/or degrading/removing organic contaminants from water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a material, such as Hastelloy—C276, as disclosed in US 317, which is a metallic material, as evidenced by Alloy Digest, to form the supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in US 483, because it would assist with forming a supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in both US 317 and US 483, that would assist with purifying water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a material, such as Hastelloy—C276, as disclosed in US 317, which is a metallic material, as evidenced by Alloy Digest, to form the supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in US 483, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. form a supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in both US 317 and US 483, that would assist with purifying water.
Hence, US 483 in view of US 317, as evidenced as by Alloy Digest (hereinafter modified US 483) is deemed to disclose a method of destroying PFAS under SCWO conditions, comprising providing an initial aqueous solution comprising water and PFAS; passing the initial aqueous solution comprising water and PFAS and an oxidant into a reaction vessel; wherein the reaction vessel comprises metal walls.
Modified US 483 discloses the method of destroying PFAS is a continuous method and wherein the aqueous solution is passed in a stream through the reaction vessel (see US 483 figure 1 and paragraphs 0013, 0049).
Herein, the term “aqueous solution” is understood as the “initial aqueous solution comprising water and PFAS”.
Modified US 483 discloses the PFAS is an oxidizable species and the initial aqueous solution may, optionally, comprise other species that oxidize by contact with the oxidant under supercritical conditions and, wherein the sum of these species constitute a combined oxidizable species (see US 483 paragraphs 0048, 0053, 0056).
It is noted that the claimed “other species” is an optional feature. Nonetheless, modified US 483 discloses that “other organics” within the aqueous solution are oxidized by the oxidant in the SCWO reactor.
The claimed “combined oxidizable species” is understood as being solely PFAS or being PFAS in combination with any other specie that is capable of being “oxidize by contact with the oxidant under supercritical conditions”.
Modified US 483 discloses controlling conditions within the reaction vessel such that the aqueous solution is in a supercritical state and that the amount of oxidant is at least 5% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species (see US 483 paragraph 0017, 0051-0054; see US 317 paragraphs 0039, 0045, 0049).
In the alternative, if modified US 483 does not disclose a “at least 5% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by modified US 483.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of the oxidant within the supercritical water oxidation reactor because if the concentration is too low then the wastewater will not be purified/the PFAS will not be degraded/removed and a too high concentration would be a waste of materials/resources and increase cost.
Modified US 483 discloses producing, via exposure to the controlling conditions, a clean hot water solution having a concentration of PFAS that is at least 90 mass% less than in the initial aqueous solution (see US 483 claim 1 and paragraphs 0016-0018, 0029).
In the alternative, if modified US 483 does not disclose a “a clean hot water solution having a concentration of PFAS that is at least 90 mass% less than in the aqueous solution”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by modified US 483.
The materials and steps disclosed in modified US 483 will necessarily result in a clean hot water solution having a concentration of PFAS that is at least 90 mass% less than in the aqueous solution. Modified US 483 discloses “producing a clean hot water solution having a concentration of PFAS that is at least 90% less than the aqueous solution” (see US 483 claim 1). Modified US 483 does not disclose the unit “mass%” but the materials and steps disclosed in modified US 483 appear to be substantially identical to the claimed material(s) and step(s) and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 3, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses the method maintains at least 5% oxidant surplus for at least 95% of a duration of a complete run at least 95% of a complete length of the reaction vessel that is exposed to supercritical aqueous solution (see rejection of claim 1).
As established above, modified US 483 discloses “preferred oxidant is hydrogen peroxide which can be added in excess (for example an excess of at least 50% or at least 100% or in the range of 50% to 300% excess) and the excess hydrogen peroxide reacting to form dioxygen and water” (see US 483 paragraph 0054). Thus, modified US 483 is deemed to disclose the method maintains at least 5% oxidant surplus for at least 95% of a duration of a complete run at least 95% of a complete length of the reaction vessel that is exposed to supercritical aqueous solution.
In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of the oxidant within the supercritical water oxidation reactor because if the concentration is too low then the wastewater will not be purified/the PFAS will not be degraded/removed and/or the amount of oxidant will be depleted before the PFAS is degraded/removed and a too high concentration would be a waste of materials/resources and increase cost.
Regarding claim 4, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses wherein, relative to a method having identical conditions but having 95% or less of the amount of oxidant needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species; the method shows a reduction in hydrogen embrittlement of at least 10% (see rejection of claim 1).
As established above, claim 4 is deemed indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 4 is understood as “the method shows a reduction in hydrogen embrittlement of at least 10%”.
The materials and steps disclosed in modified US 483 will necessarily result in reduction in hydrogen embrittlement of at least 10%. Modified US 483 does not disclose a “hydrogen embrittlement” element but does disclose a similar oxidation in supercritical condition method (see US 483 claim 1 and paragraphs 0007 and 0047-0054). The materials and steps disclosed in modified US 483 appear to be substantially identical to the claimed material(s) and step(s) and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 5, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses wherein, relative to a method having identical conditions but having 95% or less of the amount of oxidant needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species; the method shows a reduction in hydrogen embrittlement of at least 50% (see rejection of claim 1).
As established above, claim 5 is deemed indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 4 is understood as “the method shows a reduction in hydrogen embrittlement of at least 50%”.
The materials and steps disclosed in modified US 483 will necessarily result in reduction in hydrogen embrittlement of at least 50%. Modified US 483 does not disclose a “hydrogen embrittlement” element but does disclose a similar oxidation in supercritical condition method (see US 483 claim 1 and paragraphs 0007 and 0047-0054). The materials and steps disclosed in modified US 483 appear to be substantially identical to the claimed material(s) and step(s) and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 6, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses the reaction vessel comprises an inlet and an outlet (see US 483 figure 1 and paragraphs 0017, 0021; see US 317 figures 2A-5 and paragraphs 0036, 0038, 0040).
Figure 1 of US 483 illustrates an inlet and an outlet for the SCWO reactor and figures 2A-5 of US 317 discloses an inlet and an outlet for the SCWR). The reactor of modified US 483 necessarily has an inlet and an outlet for the fluid to enter and exit the reactor.
Modified US 483 discloses the oxidant is added to the aqueous solution prior to the solution passing through the inlet (see US 483 paragraph 0040; see US 317 paragraphs 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 7, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses the internal walls of the reaction vessel are cylindrical (see US 483 figure 2 and paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 8, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 does not disclose the supercritical aqueous solution directly contacts the metallic walls of the reaction vessel. However, the plain reading of modified US 483 would be that the solution, containing PFAS, upon entering the reactor would come into direct contact with the walls of said reactor. Thus, modified US 483 is deemed to disclose the supercritical aqueous solution directly contacts the metallic walls of the reaction vessel.
Regarding claim 9, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses the metallic walls of the reaction vessel comprise a coating that is permeable to hydrogen (see rejection of claim 1; see US 483 paragraphs 0016, 0029, 0062).
Regarding claim 10, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses the oxidant comprises O2 (see US 483 paragraphs 0017, 0053)
Regarding claim 11, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses the oxidant comprises hydrogen peroxide (see US 483 paragraphs 0017, 0040, 0053)
Regarding claim 12, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses walls of the reaction vessel, that are in contact with the aqueous solution is in a supercritical state, are comprised of a nickel-based alloy (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses transferring heat from the clean hot water solution to the aqueous solution in a heat exchanger in a preheating step (see US 483 paragraphs 0009, 0016 and claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses controlling conditions within the reaction vessel such that the aqueous solution is in a supercritical state and that the amount of oxidant is at least 10%, or at least 20%, or at least 30%, or at least 50%, or at least 90% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species (see rejection of claim 1; see US 483 paragraphs 0050-0051 ; see US 317 paragraph 0039, 0045, 0049).
As established above, claim 14 is deemed indefinite. Herein, claim 14 is understood as being any of the claimed ranges, i.e. “at least 10%”, “at least 20%”, at least 30%”, etc. Further, the claimed range is understood as being based upon PFAS.
Modified US 483 discloses “preferred oxidant is hydrogen peroxide which can be added in excess (for example an excess of at least 50% or at least 100% or in the range of 50% to 300% excess) and the excess hydrogen peroxide reacting to form dioxygen and water” (see US 483 paragraph 0054) and “the SCWO portion of the process, can be characterized by converting a PFAS-concentration of at least 100 ppb PFAS by weight (in some embodiments at least 500 ppb or at least 1000 ppb PFAS) to 1 ppb or less, or 0.1 ppb or less, or 0.01 ppm or less or 7 ppt or less” (see US 483 paragraph 0018).
Hence, modified US 483 is deemed to disclose controlling conditions within the reaction vessel such that the aqueous solution is in a supercritical state and that the amount of oxidant is at least 10%, or at least 20%, or at least 30%, or at least 50%, or at least 90% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species.
Regarding claim 15, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses controlling conditions within the reaction vessel such that the aqueous solution is in a supercritical state and that the amount of oxidant is 5 to 200% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species (see rejection of claims 1 & 14).
Regarding claim 16, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses producing, via exposure to the controlling conditions, a clean hot water solution having a concentration of PFAS that is at least 95%, or at least 99%, or at least 99.9 mass% less than in the aqueous solution (see rejection of claims 1 & 14; see US 483 paragraphs 0009, 0016).
Regarding claim 17, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses controlling conditions within the reaction vessel such that the aqueous solution is in a supercritical state and that the amount of oxidant is at least 50% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species (see rejection of claim 1).
As noted above, the claimed “amount of oxidant” is an indefinite feature.
Regarding claim 18, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified US 483 discloses controlling conditions within the reaction vessel such that the aqueous solution is in a supercritical state and that the amount of oxidant is at least 90% greater than that needed to oxidize all of the combined oxidizable species (see rejection of claim 1).
As noted above, the claimed “amount of oxidant” is an indefinite feature.
Regarding claim 19, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, modified US 483 discloses the method maintains at least 10% oxidant surplus for at least 95% of the duration of a complete run that is exposed to supercritical aqueous solution (see rejection of claims 1 and 3). As established above, modified US 483 discloses “preferred oxidant is hydrogen peroxide which can be added in excess (for example an excess of at least 50% or at least 100% or in the range of 50% to 300% excess) and the excess hydrogen peroxide reacting to form dioxygen and water” (see US 483 paragraph 0054). In addition, even if modified US 483 does not disclose the method maintains at least 10% oxidant surplus for at least 95% of the duration of a complete run that is exposed to supercritical aqueous solution, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of the oxidant within the supercritical water oxidation reactor because if the concentration is too low then the wastewater will not be purified/the PFAS will not be degraded/removed and/or the amount of oxidant will be depleted before the PFAS is degraded/removed and a too high concentration would be a waste of materials/resources and increase cost.
Regarding claim 21, modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, modified US 483 discloses the initial aqueous solution comprises an oxidizable fuel to provide heat into the reaction vessel (see US 483 paragraph 0056).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2022/0041483 A1 (hereinafter US 483) in view of US 20050006317 A1 (hereinafter US 317), as evidenced by Alloy Digest - Data on World Wide Metals and Alloys - HASTELLOY* Alloy C-276 (Corrosion and Heat Resisting Alloy).</i> ASM International. Retrieved from <br>https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt013MGHKJ/alloy-digest-data-world/unclassifi-hastelloy-alloy (retrieved September 25, 2025; issued May 1971) (hereinafter Alloy Digest) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Towler, Gavin Sinnott, Ray K.. (2013). <i>Chemical Engineering Design - Principles, Practice and Economics of Plant and Process Design (2nd Edition) - 6.8.3 Nickel.</i> Elsevier. Retrieved from <br>https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt00ANTX6A/chemical-engineering/nickel (hereinafter Towler).
Regarding claim 20 modified US 483 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, modified US 483 disclose the alloy comprises 50 to 80 wt% of Ni (see rejection of claim 1).
Modified US 483 discloses that the “SCWR (201) is typically a vessel constructed according to known high pressure design codes of Hastelloy—C276, Inconel, or other suitable material” (see US 317 paragraph 0042). One of ordinary skill in the art may consider using either C276 or Inconel, as disclosed in US 317, as the walls of the reaction vessel, and further, as evidenced by Towler, Inconel is typically composed of 76% Ni, 7% Fe, 15% Cr (see Towler page 295/section 6.8.5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a material, such as Inconel, as disclosed in US 317, which is a metallic material comprising typically 76% Ni, 7% Fe, 15% Cr, as evidenced by Towler, to form the supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in modified US 483, because it would assist with forming a supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in both US 317 and US 483, that would assist with purifying water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a material, such as Inconel, as disclosed in US 317, which is a metallic material comprising typically 76% Ni, 7% Fe, 15% Cr, as evidenced by Towler, to form the supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in US 483, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. form a supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in both US 317 and US 483, that would assist with purifying water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a material, such as Inconel, as disclosed in US 317, which is a typically composed of 76% Ni, 7% Fe, 15% Cr, as evidenced by Towler, to form the supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in US 483, because it would assist with forming a supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in both US 317 and US 483, that would assist with purifying water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a material, such as Inconel, as disclosed in US 317, which is a typically composed of 76% Ni, 7% Fe, 15% Cr, as evidenced by Towler, to form the supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in US 483, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. form a supercritical water oxidation reactor, as disclosed in both US 317 and US 483, that would assist with purifying water.
Related Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure:
US 2023/0047367 (hereinafter US 367) discloses a method and system for the destruction of PFAS by oxidation in supercritical conditions (see US 367 abstract and figure 1-2). US 367 discloses “a method of destroying PFAS, comprising: providing an aqueous solution comprising water and PFAS; preheating the aqueous solution; providing a reactor comprising reactor walls coated with a ceramic coating that is resistant to hydrofluoric acid; treating the solution in the reactor with an oxidant under conditions in which water is in the supercritical phase to produce a clean hot water solution having a concentration of PFAS that is at least 90% less than the aqueous solution; and transferring heat from the clean hot water solution to the aqueous solution in a heat exchanger in the preheating step” (see US 367 paragraph 0016). US367 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) that the method converts to an effluent comprising 1 ppm or less, or 0.1 ppm or less, or 0.01 ppm or less, or 1.0 ppb or less, or 0.1 ppb or less, or 0.01 ppb or less PFAS; in some embodiments in the range of 1 ppm to 5 ppt (part per trillion) PFAS or less; wherein the PFAS-containing solution is mixed with a solution comprising 30 to 50 wt % H2O2 at a weight ratio of preferably 30:1 to 70:1 wt % ratio PFAS solution:H2O2” (see US 367 paragraph 0017).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773