DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
1. Claims 1-19 are pending and subject to examination on the merits. Claims 1-19 are currently under examination.
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made for the Applicant’s claim for domestic priority based on the US provisional application PRO 63/429,375 filed 01 December 2022.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
3. The objection to drawings is withdrawn, since the Drawings were resubmitted and are now legible.
4. The objection to the specification for an embedded hyperlink is withdrawn, since the hyperlink was deleted.
5. The objection to the specification for reciting a trademarked name without designating it with the trademark sign is withdrawn, since the trademarked name is now denoted correctly.
6. The objection to claim 3 for the recitation of the temperature in Fahrenheit is withdrawn, since the temperature is listed in Celsius as well.
7. The objection to claim 5 for reciting “claim 1 4” is withdrawn, since it was amended to recited “claim 1.”
8. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 1-19 for reciting “reduced contaminant levels in the treated material” is withdrawn, since the claims were amended to also recite “when compared to an untreated material.”
9. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) enablement and written description rejections are withdrawn and replaced with the modified rejections found below due to claim amendments.
10. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102 anticipation rejection of Rodriguez and McCoy (Rodriguez and McCoy, 2021, US 2021/0277424 A1—cited on the Information Disclosure Statement filed 21 March 2024) as evidenced by Tang and Kristanti, 2022, Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering—cited previously) and David and Niculescu (David and Niculescu, 2021, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health—cited previously) is withdrawn and replaced with the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection over Rodriguez and McCoy (Rodriguez and McCoy, 2021, US 2021/0277424 A1—cited on the Information Disclosure Statement filed 21 March 2024) as evidenced by Tang and Kristanti, 2022, Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering—cited previously) and David and Niculescu (David and Niculescu, 2021, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health—cited previously) and in further view of Golovko et al. (Golovko et al., 2021, Chemosphere—cited herein).
New/Modified Rejections—necessitated by claim amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
11. 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.
Written Description:
12. Claims 1-19 are 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.
The claims are drawn to a method of reducing contaminant levels in at least one material or reducing greenhouse gas emissions (claims 18-19) by remediating at least one material by inoculating the one material and/or building material with a filamentous fungi selected from group consisting of Gloeophyllum trabeum, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Irpex lacteus, Lentinus crinitus, Lentinus tigrinus, Pleurotus ostreatus, Ganoderma lucidum, Cunninghamella elegans, Trametes versicolor, Pseudeurotium sp, Geomyces sp, and/or a combination thereof and incubating the incubation mixture to degrade a volatile organic compound, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and/or semi-volatile organic compounds, wherein the PFASs are selected from the group consisting of PFDA, PFDoA, PFDS, PFHxS, PFTeA, PFHpSm, PFNS, PFTriA, and PFUnA, and wherein the VOCs and SVOCs are selected from the group consisting of 1,1,1 -trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2- trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2- dichloropropane, 1,3-dichloropropene (total), 2-butanone (mek), 2-hexanone, benzene, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, bromomethane, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, cis-1,3- dichloropropene, dibromochloromethane, ethylbenzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl tert- butyl ether, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, toluene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,3- dichloropropene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, xylenes (total), 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2- dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 2,2'-oxybis[ 1-chloropropane], 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2,4- dinitrophenol, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 2-chlorophenol, 2-methylphenol, 2- nitroaniline, 2-nitrophenol, 3-methylphenol and 4-methylphenol, 3-nitroaniline, 4,6-dinitro-2- methylphenol, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, 4-chloroaniline, 4- nitroaniline, 4-nitrophenol, bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, hexachloroethane, isophorone, nitrobenzene, n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, pentachlorophenol, and phenol, and wherein the degradation of the contaminant results in reduced contaminant levels in the treated material when compared to an untreated material, whereby producing a treated material with less contaminants (claim 1) and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (claims 18-19).
MPEP 2163(1):
35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the "specification shall contain a written description of the invention ...." This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane); Vas-Gath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("conclusive evidence of a claim's enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim's satisfactory written description"). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. "[T]he 'essential goal' of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed." In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). "The 'written description' requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent's term.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Gath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings.
13. The claims are drawn to a method of reducing contaminant levels and reducing and/or preventing greenhouse gas emissions in any large and variable group of materials. The variability in reducing contaminant levels versus reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a large and variable goal. Regarding the reduction of a specific contaminant, where that contaminant could be any VOCs, PFASs, or SVOCs selected from the group consisting of PFDA, PFDoA, PFDS, PFHxS, PFTeA, PFHpSm, PFNS, PFTriA, and PFUnA and wherein the VOCs and SVOCs are selected from the group consisting of 1,1,1 -trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2- trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2- dichloropropane, 1,3-dichloropropene (total), 2-butanone (mek), 2-hexanone, benzene, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, bromomethane, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, cis-1,3- dichloropropene, dibromochloromethane, ethylbenzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl tert- butyl ether, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, toluene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,3- dichloropropene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, xylenes (total), 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2- dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 2,2'-oxybis[ 1-chloropropane], 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2,4- dinitrophenol, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 2-chlorophenol, 2-methylphenol, 2- nitroaniline, 2-nitrophenol, 3-methylphenol and 4-methylphenol, 3-nitroaniline, 4,6-dinitro-2- methylphenol, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, 4-chloroaniline, 4- nitroaniline, 4-nitrophenol, bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, hexachloroethane, isophorone, nitrobenzene, n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, pentachlorophenol, and phenol, and wherein the degradation of the contaminant results in reduced contaminant levels in the treated material when compared to an untreated material, the variability and unpredictability of this combination of groups of chemicals is enormous. There are many compounds that fall into these different categories with very varied chemical structures and make-ups. For example, the EPA teaches that VOC’s and SVOC’s differ in boiling points (ranging from 50-400oC) and include different example compounds, where formaldehyde, d-limonene, toluene, acetone, ethanol, 2-propanol, and hexanal are examples of VOCs and pesticides such as DDT, chlordane, plasticizers/phthalates, and fire retardants are SVOCs (p. 4-5, EPA, 2025, “Technical Overview of Volatile Organic Compounds,” downloaded 01 April 2025 from <https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/technical-overview-volatile-organic-compounds> and provided as a PDF—cited previously). Additionally, PFASs make up an enormous group of plasticizers numbering over a thousand compounds, which were produced in the 1940s, as taught by the EPA 2 (p. 2, EPA 2, 2025, “Per- Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) are a group of Manufactured Chemicals,” downloaded 01 April 2025 from <https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas> and provided as a PDF—cited previously). Specifically, the claims list that the PFASs are selected from the group consisting of PFDA, PFDoA, PFDS, PFHxS, PFTeA, PFHpSm, PFNS, PFTriA, and PFUnA and wherein the VOCs and SVOCs are selected from the group consisting of 1,1,1 -trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2- trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2- dichloropropane, 1,3-dichloropropene (total), 2-butanone (mek), 2-hexanone, benzene, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, bromomethane, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, cis-1,3- dichloropropene, dibromochloromethane, ethylbenzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl tert- butyl ether, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, toluene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,3- dichloropropene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, xylenes (total), 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2- dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 2,2'-oxybis[ 1-chloropropane], 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2,4- dinitrophenol, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 2-chlorophenol, 2-methylphenol, 2- nitroaniline, 2-nitrophenol, 3-methylphenol and 4-methylphenol, 3-nitroaniline, 4,6-dinitro-2- methylphenol, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, 4-chloroaniline, 4- nitroaniline, 4-nitrophenol, bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, hexachloroethane, isophorone, nitrobenzene, n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, pentachlorophenol, and phenol, and wherein the degradation of the contaminant results in reduced contaminant levels in the treated material when compared to an untreated material.
However, in the specification, not all of the listed PFAS were actually reduced upon treatment with the strains. The PFAS that demonstrated an increase instead of decrease upon treatment with one of the filamentous fungi strains or combination thereof are PFDS, PFDA, PFDoA, PFHxS, and PFTeA. The SVOC’s that were increased are
It is unknown how the greenhouse gas emission is reduced and by how much since there is no quantifiable measure in the specification or the claims for this reduction. The variability in the filamentous fungi is also enormous, where they photogenically very diverse as taught by Ferreira et al (p. 296, column 2, Filamentous Fungi: Distinctive Properties, Ferreira et al., 2020, Current Pollution Reports—cited previously). The specification does not teach the measurement of any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the specification is silent on the specific species or combination thereof of filamentous fungi used. The specification also does not teach a variety of materials. At most the specification teaches an undisclosed combination of 5 fungi incubated with gypsum as a material and the reduction and also increase in some situations of PFASs. The demonstration of a decrease in some PFASs and increase in others in a solution containing an undisclosed species of filamentous fungi with gypsum does not describe which microbes would successfully work with a variety of building materials, some of which may contain gypsum, in reducing VOCs, PFASs, and SVOCs and in addition a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The variability of the fungi, materials, and metabolic reduction pathways coupled with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is enormous. Here the specification is incomplete and it mandates that those skilled in the art must then figure out how to use the aimed invention. Thus, the claims do not find adequate support the specification to show that possession of methods for utilizing any of the filamentous fungi or combination thereof in the reduction of VOCs, SVOCs, and/or PFASs in any material and further the reduction of any greenhouse emissions. The courts have established:
Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013):
A patent, however, "is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353 (quoting University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 930 n.10). For that reason, the written description requirement prohibits a patentee from "leaving it to the ... industry to complete an ufinished invention.” Id.
Enablement:
14. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the reduction of some PFASs in a mixture of pure gypsum by 5 strains of filamentous fungi, does not reasonable provide enablement for the reduction of all of the PFASs listed in any material by any and/or a combination of the listed filamentous fungi. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims without significant undue experimentation.
The factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required are summarized In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir, 1988). The court in Wands states:
"Enablement is not precluded by the necessity for some experimentation such as routine screening. However, experimentation needed to practice the invention must not be undue experimentation. The key word is 'undue,' not 'experimentation.' " (Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1404). Clearly, enablement of a claimed invention cannot be predicated on the basis of quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention. "Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations." (Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1404). The factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required include: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.
The claims in their broadest are drawn to a method of reducing VOCs, SVOCs, and/or PFASs in any material by a combination or single filamentous fungi selected from Gloeophyllum trabeum, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Irpex lacteus, Lentinus crinitus,Lentinus tigrinus, Pleurotus ostreatus, Ganoderma lucidum, Cunninghamella elegans,Trametes versicolor, Pseudeurotium sp., or Geomyces sp. and further to reducing the emission of greenhouse gasses using the same method. The direction and guidance coupled with the working examples of the application, however, are drawn only to demonstrating the reduction of most (not all) of the PFASs measured by incubating an undisclosed combination of 5 filamentous fungi with pure gypsum. The quantity experimentation would be considerable because, while the relative skill level in the art is high (PhD or MD), they would be required to ascertain which combination or single filamentous fungi is to be used to reduce which VOC, SVOC, and/or PFAS from what material and further to determine how this same method reduces the emission of greenhouse gasses. It would be extremely difficult to be able to discern which combinations would give rise to the goal of reduction of VOCs, SVOCs, and/or PFASs from materials and further remediating said materials to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses. It would be almost impossible to reliably predict the combination and/or combinations of fungi and materials necessary to reduce the emitted VOCs, SVOCs, and/or PFASs from a material and/or reduce greenhouse emissions from said material claimed in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez and McCoy (Rodriguez and McCoy, 2021, US 2021/0277424 A1—cited on the Information Disclosure Statement filed 21 March 2024) as evidenced by Tang and Kristanti, 2022, Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering—cited previously) and David and Niculescu (David and Niculescu, 2021, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health—cited previously), and further in view of Golovko et al. (Golovko et al., 2021, Chemosphere—cited herein). Regarding claim 1, drawn to a method of reducing contaminant levels in at least one material by inoculating the material with a filamentous fungus from the group consisting of Gloeophyllum trabeum, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Irpex lacteus, Lentinus crinitus,Lentinus tigrinus, Pleurotus ostreatus, Ganoderma lucidum, Cunninghamella elegans,Trametes versicolor, Pseudeurotium sp., or Geomyces sp. and/or a combination thereof to degrade a contaminant that may be a VOC, PFAS, or SVOC, generating a treated material, wherein the PFASs are selected from the group consisting of PFDA, PFDoA, PFDS, PFHxS, PFTeA, PFHpSm, PFNS, PFTriA, and PFUnA and wherein the VOCs and SVOCs are selected from the group consisting of 1,1,1 -trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2- trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2- dichloropropane, 1,3-dichloropropene (total), 2-butanone (mek), 2-hexanone, benzene, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, bromomethane, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, cis-1,3- dichloropropene, dibromochloromethane, ethylbenzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl tert- butyl ether, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, toluene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,3- dichloropropene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, xylenes (total), 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2- dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 2,2'-oxybis[ 1-chloropropane], 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2,4- dinitrophenol, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 2-chlorophenol, 2-methylphenol, 2- nitroaniline, 2-nitrophenol, 3-methylphenol and 4-methylphenol, 3-nitroaniline, 4,6-dinitro-2- methylphenol, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, 4-chloroaniline, 4- nitroaniline, 4-nitrophenol, bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, hexachloroethane, isophorone, nitrobenzene, n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, pentachlorophenol, and phenol,and wherein the degradation of the contaminant results in reduced contaminant levels in the treated material when compared to an untreated material. Rodriguez and McCoy teach inoculating the scrap with a saprotrophic fungus species (0006), such as Plerotus ostreatus (0042), to reduce PAH-containing substrate, such as naphthalene (VOC), and/or anthracene (SVOC) (0033; See Table 2 of the instant application, which also show these substances as organic compounds for removal), and where finally, the treated product comprises the target pollutant in a significantly less amount than the substrate (0035).
Regarding claim 2, drawn to a reduction of at least 5% of the contaminant level, Rodriguez and McCoy teach a substantial reduction in contaminant. Although Rodriguez and McCoy do not recite a reduction of at least 5%, they teach the exact same method steps with the exact same fungus and treating the same material, (e.g. the method steps and products used in the methods are the same). Therefore, it would be an inherent property of the method to achieve the same result. See MPEP 2112/2112.02.
Regarding claim 3, drawn to an inoculation temperature between 4-38oC (70-100oF), Rodriguez and McCoy teach an incubation temperature of 70oF (about 21oC) (0028). Regarding claim 4, drawn to an inoculation rate of between 2% and 18% by weight of material, Rodriguez and McCoy teach an inoculation rate of about 5% (0052). Regarding claim 5, drawn to an incubation of at least 24 hours, Rodriguez and McCoy teach an incubation time of one week (0058). Regarding claims 6, 7, and 12, drawn to an incubation under aerobic conditions (claim 6) and a growth medium mixture prior to incubation (claim 7) with water (claim 12), Rodriguez and McCoy teach the compositions comprising pieces of petrochemical-containing scrap material, growth medium, air, water, a sterilizing agent, and an fungal culture (0039) and subsequent incubation of 1 week (0053). Regarding claims 8, drawn to the material (claim 14) being sawdust, straw, gypsum, or wheat bran, Rodriguez and McCoy teach sawdust mixtures containing alder sawdust, wheat bran, and gypsum (0055 table). Regarding claims 9, 10, and 13, drawn to the processing (claim 9) and subsequent sterilization of material (claim 10) reducing and/or removing inhibitory components of the mixture (claim 13), Rodriguez and McCoy teach mechanically reducing the substrate to produce a ground substrate (0037, 2nd column) and sterilizing the substrate before inoculating (0038, line 20). Regarding claims 14-15, drawn to a building material (claim 14) comprising shingles (claim 15), Rodriguez and McCoy teach asphalt-containing petrochemical substrates, including roofing shingles (0039). Regarding claim 16 and 18, drawn to the treated material being usable (claim 16) or having a pathway for use (claim 18), Rodriguez and McCoy teach the bioremediation of building material for recycling (p. 4, 0034). Regarding claim 17, drawn to sequestering and/or destroying the contaminant, in contacting the contaminant with a filamentous fungi, it is sequestered or destroyed in the bioremediation process as evidenced by Tang and Kristanti; specifically fungi are able to either breakdown the contaminants extracellularly and import them or directly uptake the contaminants for use in downstream metabolic pathways (p. 1102, first and second paragraphs; Fig. 4). Regarding claim 19, drawn to the reduction of greenhouse gasses utilizing the method of claim 1, the reduction/sequestration of a VOC would result in the reduction of greenhouse gas emission, since it is, in and of itself, a greenhouse gas as evidenced by David and Niculescu (p. 2, line 1).
Rodriguez and McCoy as evidenced by Tang and Kristani and David and Niculescu do not teach the breakdown of multiple perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) (claims 1 and 19).
Golovko et al. teach the uptake of micropollutants, such as perfluoroalkyl substances, by oyster mushrooms, Pleurotus ostreatus (title; p.2, column 1, paragraph 2), because micropollutants show low removal in efficiency in wastewater treatment and can thus be released into the aquatic environment (p. 2, paragraph 3). Golovko et al. continue to teach that P. ostreatus can grow on a wide variety of agro-industrial wastes (p. 2, paragraph 4). Last, Golovko et al. teaches the uptake of many different PFAs, including PFBS, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFNA, PFDA, PFUnDA, PFDoDA, PFTeDA, PFBS, PFHxS, PFOS, an dFOSA, thus resulting in a decrease in the environmental levels of some PFAS at different time points (p.4, Fig. 1b).
Therefore, it 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 combine the teachings of Rodriguez and McCoy as evidenced by Tang and Kristanti and David and Niculescu, and further in view of Golovko et al. to create a method for the reduction of pollutants and/or greenhouse gasses by the microremediation of PFAs to remove low efficiency micropollutants from the wastewater and other environmental sources, as taught by Golovko et al. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to arrive at the instant claims to determine the utilization of micropollutant removal system, such as P. ostreatus, in the bioremediation of food wastes to reduce agricultural waste products, as taught by Golovko et al. (p. 2, paragraphs 1-2). There would be a reasonable expectation of success, yielding no surprising results when combining the teachings of Rodriguez and McCoy as evidenced by Tang and Kristanti and David and Niculescu, and further in view of Golovko et al. to utilize P. ostreatus and/or other filamentous fungi to remediate micropollutants, such as PFAs, since micropollutants are active even at trace levels and can have detrimental impacts on human health and the environment as taught by Golovko et al (p. 2, paragraph 2).
Double Patenting
18. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
19. Claims 1-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/524,456 in view of Golovko et al. (Golovko et al., 2021, Chemosphere—cited herein).
The instant claims in their broadest are drawn to a method for reducing contaminant levels in a material by inoculating the material with a filamentous fungi selected from the group consisting of Gloeophyllum trabeum, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Irpex lacteus, Lentinus crinitus,Lentinus tigrinus, Pleurotus ostreatus, Ganoderma lucidum, Cunninghamella elegans,Trametes versicolor, Pseudeurotium sp., or Geomyces sp. and/or a combination thereof, incubating the mixture degrading the contaminant, where the contaminant is a VOC, PFAS, and/or SVOC, wherein wherein the PFASs are selected from the group consisting of PFDA, PFDoA, PFDS, PFHxS, PFTeA, PFHpSm, PFNS, PFTriA, and PFUnA and wherein the VOCs and SVOCs are selected from the group consisting of 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2- tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2- dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,3-dichloropropene (total), 2-butanone (mek), 2-hexanone, benzene, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, bromomethane, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, cis-1,3-dichloropropene, dibromochloromethane, ethylbenzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl tert-butyl ether, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, toluene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, trans- 1,3-dichloropropene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, xylenes (total), 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 2,2'-oxybis[ 1-chloropropane], 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2,4- dinitrophenol, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 2-chlorophenol, 2-methylphenol, 2- nitroaniline, 2-nitrophenol, 3-methylphenol and 4-methylphenol, 3-nitroaniline, 4,6-dinitro-2- methylphenol, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, 4-chloroaniline, 4- nitroaniline, 4-nitrophenol, bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, bis(2- ethylhexyl) phthalate, diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, hexachloroethane, isophorone, nitrobenzene, n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, pentachlorophenol, and phenol. Additionally, the inoculation temperature is between 40-100oF (claim 3) and the inoculation rate is between 2-18% (claim 4). Claim 5 is drawn to the incubation period of at least 24 hours. Claim 8 is directed to the growth medium containing a lignin-containing material, sawdust, paper, cardboard, straw, wheat bran, hemp, dextrose, Light Malt Extract, gypsum, vermiculite, or sea minerals. Claims 9-11 are drawn to the material being processed and sterilized. Claim 12 is directed to the addition of water, and 13 is drawn to the removal of inhibitory components. Claims 14-16 are drawn to the material being a building material. Claim 17-19 are drawn to the sequestration of the contaminant for the building material to utilized and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by said method of claim 1.
The ‘456 claims in their broadest are drawn to a method for reducing contaminant levels in a material by inoculating the material with a filamentous fungi selected from the group consisting of Gloeophyllum trabeum, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Irpex lacteus, Lentinus crinitus,Lentinus tigrinus, Pleurotus ostreatus, Ganoderma lucidum, Cunninghamella elegans,Trametes versicolor, Pseudeurotium sp., or Geomyces sp. and/or a combination thereof, incubating the mixture degrading the contaminant, where the contaminant is a VOC, PFAS, and/or SVOC. Additionally, the inoculation temperature is between 40-100oF (claim 3) and the inoculation rate is between 2-18% (claim 4). Claim 5 is drawn to the incubation period of at least 24 hours. Claim 8 is directed to the growth medium containing a lignin-containing material, sawdust, paper, cardboard, straw, wheat bran, hemp, dextrose, Light Malt Extract, gypsum, vermiculite, or sea minerals. Claims 9-11 are drawn to the material being processed and sterilized. Claim 12 is directed to the addition of water, and 13 is drawn to the removal of inhibitory components. Claims 14-16 are drawn to the material being a building material. Claim 17-19 are drawn to the sequestration of the contaminant for the building material to utilized and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by said method of claim 1.
The ‘456 claims do not teach the breakdown of multiple perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) (claims 1 and 19).
Golovko et al. teach the uptake of micropollutants, such as perfluoroalkyl substances, by oyster mushrooms, Pleurotus ostreatus (title; p.2, column 1, paragraph 2), because micropollutants show low removal in efficiency in wastewater treatment and can thus be released into the aquatic environment (p. 2, paragraph 3). Golovko et al. continue to teach that P. ostreatus can grow on a wide variety of agro-industrial wastes (p. 2, paragraph 4). Last, Golovko et al. teaches the uptake of many different PFAs, including PFBS, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFNA, PFDA, PFUnDA, PFDoDA, PFTeDA, PFBS, PFHxS, PFOS, an dFOSA, thus resulting in a decrease in the environmental levels of some PFAS at different time points (p.4, Fig. 1b).
Therefore, it 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 combine the teachings of the ‘456 claims in further view of Golovko et al. to create a method for the reduction of pollutants and/or greenhouse gasses by the microremediation of PFAs to remove low efficiency micropollutants from the wastewater and other environmental sources, as taught by Golovko et al. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to arrive at the instant claims to determine the utilization of micropollutant removal system, such as P. ostreatus, in the bioremediation of food wastes to reduce agricultural waste products, as taught by Golovko et al. (p. 2, paragraphs 1-2). There would be a reasonable expectation of success, yielding no surprising results when combining the teachings of the ‘456 claims further in view of Golovko et al. to utilize P. ostreatus and/or other filamentous fungi to remediate micropollutants, such as PFAs, since micropollutants are active even at trace levels and can have detrimental impacts on human health and the environment as taught by Golovko et al (p. 2, paragraph 2).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
20. Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 80-85, 88-89, and 92-96 of copending Application No. 17/274,425 (reference application) in further view of Golovko et al (Golovko et al., 2021, Chemosphere—cited herein).
The instant claims in their broadest are drawn to a method for reducing contaminant levels in a material by inoculating the material with a filamentous fungi selected from the group consisting of Gloeophyllum trabeum, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Irpex lacteus, Lentinus crinitus,Lentinus tigrinus, Pleurotus ostreatus, Ganoderma lucidum, Cunninghamella elegans,Trametes versicolor, Pseudeurotium sp., or Geomyces sp. and/or a combination thereof, incubating the mixture degrading the contaminant, where the contaminant is a VOC, PFAS, and/or SVOC, wherein wherein the PFASs are selected from the group consisting of PFDA, PFDoA, PFDS, PFHxS, PFTeA, PFHpSm, PFNS, PFTriA, and PFUnA and wherein the VOCs and SVOCs are selected from the group consisting of 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2- tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2- dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,3-dichloropropene (total), 2-butanone (mek), 2-hexanone, benzene, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, bromomethane, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, cis-1,3-dichloropropene, dibromochloromethane, ethylbenzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl tert-butyl ether, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, toluene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, trans- 1,3-dichloropropene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, xylenes (total), 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 2,2'-oxybis[ 1-chloropropane], 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2,4- dinitrophenol, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 2-chlorophenol, 2-methylphenol, 2- nitroaniline, 2-nitrophenol, 3-methylphenol and 4-methylphenol, 3-nitroaniline, 4,6-dinitro-2- methylphenol, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, 4-chloroaniline, 4- nitroaniline, 4-nitrophenol, bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, bis(2- ethylhexyl) phthalate, diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, hexachloroethane, isophorone, nitrobenzene, n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, pentachlorophenol, and phenol. Additionally, the inoculation temperature is between 40-100oF (claim 3) and the inoculation rate is between 2-18% (claim 4). Claim 5 is drawn to the incubation period of at least 24 hours. Claim 8 is directed to the growth medium containing a lignin-containing material, sawdust, paper, cardboard, straw, wheat bran, hemp, dextrose, Light Malt Extract, gypsum, vermiculite, or sea minerals. Claims 9-11 are drawn to the material being processed and sterilized. Claim 12 is directed to the addition of water, and 13 is drawn to the removal of inhibitory components. Claims 14-16 are drawn to the material being a building material. Claim 17-19 are drawn to the sequestration of the contaminant for the building material to utilized and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by said method of claim 1.
The claims of the ‘425 application in their broadest are drawn to a method of converting an asphalt containing substrate to a bioremediated biomass product by providing the asphalt containing substrate, sterilizing growth medium comprising one or more of a lignin-containing material, sawdust, paper, carboard, straw, wheat bran, gypsum, and/or hemp, mixing the substrate and growth medium, hydrating said substrate-growth medium, adding a fungal culture of Pleurotus ostreatus, Ganoderma lucidum, and/or Trametes versicolor to form a bioremediated biomass product with an inoculation rate of less than 20% (claim 1), sterilizing the medium mixture and homogenizing (claim 81), growing the inoculated substrate for 2-6 weeks aerobically (claim 82) at a temperature between 60-80-oF, where the material is a building material such as roofing shingles, and the cultivation process is complete in 2-8 weeks (claims 95-96).
The ‘425 claims do not teach the breakdown of multiple perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) (claims 1 and 19).
Golovko et al. teach the uptake of micropollutants, such as perfluoroalkyl substances, by oyster mushrooms, Pleurotus ostreatus (title; p.2, column 1, paragraph 2), because micropollutants show low removal in efficiency in wastewater treatment and can thus be released into the aquatic environment (p. 2, paragraph 3). Golovko et al. continue to teach that P. ostreatus can grow on a wide variety of agro-industrial wastes (p. 2, paragraph 4). Last, Golovko et al. teaches the uptake of many different PFAs, including PFBS, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFNA, PFDA, PFUnDA, PFDoDA, PFTeDA, PFBS, PFHxS, PFOS, an dFOSA, thus resulting in a decrease in the environmental levels of some PFAS at different time points (p.4, Fig. 1b).
Therefore, it 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 combine the teachings of the ‘425 claims in further view of Golovko et al. to create a method for the reduction of pollutants and/or greenhouse gasses by the microremediation of PFAs to remove low efficiency micropollutants from the wastewater and other environmental sources, as taught by Golovko et al. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to arrive at the instant claims to determine the utilization of micropollutant removal system, such as P. ostreatus, in the bioremediation of food wastes to reduce agricultural waste products, as taught by Golovko et al. (p. 2, paragraphs 1-2). There would be a reasonable expectation of success, yielding no surprising results when combining the teachings of the ‘425 claims and further in view of Golovko et al. to utilize P. ostreatus and/or other filamentous fungi to remediate micropollutants, such as PFAs, since micropollutants are active even at trace levels and can have detrimental impacts on human health and the environment as taught by Golovko et al (p. 2, paragraph 2).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
21. Claims 1-3, 4-8, 14-15, and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-12, 15-19, 21, and 25 of copending Application No. 18/628,394 (reference application) in further view of Golovko et al (Golovko et al., 2021, Chemosphere—cited herein).
The instant claims in their broadest are drawn to a method for reducing contaminant levels in a material by inoculating the material with a filamentous fungi selected from the group consisting of Gloeophyllum trabeum, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Irpex lacteus, Lentinus crinitus,Lentinus tigrinus, Pleurotus ostreatus, Ganoderma lucidum, Cunninghamella elegans,Trametes versicolor, Pseudeurotium sp., or Geomyces sp. and/or a combination thereof, incubating the mixture degrading the contaminant, where the contaminant is a VOC, PFAS, and/or SVOC, wherein wherein the PFASs are selected from the group consisting of PFDA, PFDoA, PFDS, PFHxS, PFTeA, PFHpSm, PFNS, PFTriA, and PFUnA and wherein the VOCs and SVOCs are selected from the group consisting of 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2- tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2- dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,3-dichloropropene (total), 2-butanone (mek), 2-hexanone, benzene, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, bromomethane, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, cis-1,3-dichloropropene, dibromochloromethane, ethylbenzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl tert-butyl ether, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, toluene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, trans- 1,3-dichloropropene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, xylenes (total), 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 2,2'-oxybis[ 1-chloropropane], 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2,4- dinitrophenol, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 2-chlorophenol, 2-methylphenol, 2- nitroaniline, 2-nitrophenol, 3-methylphenol and 4-methylphenol, 3-nitroaniline, 4,6-dinitro-2- methylphenol, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, 4-chloroaniline, 4- nitroaniline, 4-nitrophenol, bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, bis(2- ethylhexyl) phthalate, diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, hexachloro