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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 12JUN2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Benefit of domestic priority of application 63/494,703 filed on 04/06/2023 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 119e is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,8-11 of U.S. Patent No. 18/586,777 in view of DEJARME (US 20200407241).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant claims
18/586,777
Notes
1,6
1
It is obvious to provide PFAS in liquid form as DEJARME teaches as such (abstract). Note that when limitations are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, they are substantial duplicates of each other. It is obvious to combine individually claimed features.
2-3
1
Obvious in further view of NOLL (US 20020020677) teaching atomizing inlet nozzles (par. [0018]) in order to improve the thermal oxidizer reactor efficiency as is known in the art.
4-5
1
Obvious because of changes in concentration or temperature and/or optimization of the reactor conditions is not patentably distinct.
7
9
same
8
9
Obvious as DEJARME further teaching the solid reactant species for the purpose of removing HF (par. [0060]).
9
9,8
Not patentably distinct; it is obvious to combine individually claimed features.
10,6
10
It is obvious to provide PFAS in liquid form as DEJARME teaches as such (abstract). Obvious in further view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation” teaching a flame (P349/second full paragraph), which provides complete oxidation. Note that when limitations are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, they are substantial duplicates of each other. It is obvious to combine individually claimed features.
11-13
10
Obvious in further view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation” and NOLL (US 20020020677) teaching atomizing inlet nozzles (par. [0018]) in order to improve the thermal oxidizer reactor efficiency as is known in the art.
14
10
Obvious in further view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation”. Obvious because of changes in temperature and/or optimization of the reactor conditions is not patentably distinct.
15-17
9,10,11
Obvious in further view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation”. It is obvious to combine individually claimed features.
Below is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4,6-8 of copending Application No. 18/586,776 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claims
18/586,776
Notes
1,7
1,8
Note that when limitations are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, they are substantial duplicates of each other. It is obvious to combine individually claimed features. ‘777 narrower and thus limitations are anticapatory.
2-3
1,8
Obvious in further view of NOLL (US 20020020677) teaching atomizing inlet nozzles (par. [0018]) in order to improve the thermal oxidizer reactor efficiency as is known in the art.
4
2
slight difference in wording.
5
4
slight difference in wording.
6
7
‘777 narrower and thus limitations are anticapatory.
8
3
same
9
6
slight difference in wording.
10,7
1,8
Obvious in further view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation” teaching a flame (P349/second full paragraph), which provides complete oxidation. Note that when limitations are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, they are substantial duplicates of each other. It is obvious to combine individually claimed features.
11-13
1,8
Obvious in further view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation” and NOLL (US 20020020677) teaching atomizing inlet nozzles (par. [0018]) in order to improve the thermal oxidizer reactor efficiency as is known in the art.
14
4
Obvious in further view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation”. Slight difference in wording.
15
1,8
Obvious in further view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation”. Slight difference in wording.
16
7
Obvious in further view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation”. Slight difference in wording.
17
1,8
Obvious in further view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation” and DEJARME (US 20200407241) as teaching quenching (par. [0060]) for the purpose of removing HF.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DEJARME (US 20200407241).
Regarding claim 1, DEJARME teaches destruction of PFAS via an oxidation process (title) including a process for converting poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS; abstract) comprising:
injecting a feed comprising liquid PFAS (e.g. Fig. 6A #402; par. [0009;0080]) into a thermal oxidation zone (e.g. a high temperature oxidation reactor or SCWO; Fig. 6A #410; abstract; par. [0005,0080]); and,
thermally oxidizing, in the thermal oxidation zone, the PFAS to provide a thermal oxidation effluent comprising a fluoride species (e.g. Fig. 6A #412; par. [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, DEJARME teaches atomizing the liquid PFAS before the feed is injected into a thermal oxidizer in the thermal oxidation zone with injection nozzles (par. [0043]).
Regarding claim 4, DEJARME teaches the thermal oxidation zone is configured to oxidize 99.999% of the PFAS in the feed, which anticipates the claimed range of between 90 to 99.9999%.
Regarding claim 5, DEJARME teaches the thermally oxidizing is performed at a temperature between about 500 °C to about 700 °C (par. [0080]), which anticipates the claimed range of about 500 °C to about 2,300 °C.
Regarding claim 6, DEJARME teaches cooling, in a cooling zone, the thermal oxidation effluent (Fig. 5; par. [0076]).
Regarding claims 7-8, DEJARME teaches neutralizing (par. [0012]), in a reaction zone comprising a vessel (salt separator; Fig. 6A #414) with a solid reactant (alkali or a base of sodium or NaOH; par. [0060]), the fluoride species with the solid reactant; and,
converting, with the solid reactant in the reaction zone, any PFAS in the thermal oxidation effluent to a fluorine salt (e.g. sodium fluoride; Fig. 6A #416; par. [0060;0080]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over DEJARME (US 20200407241).
Regarding claim 9, DEJARME teaches the thermally oxidizing is performed at a first temperature (e.g. 700° C; par. [0076]), and wherein the neutralizing and the converting are performed at a second temperature less than the first temperature by mixing cooling water (par. [0076]).
DEJARME is silent as to the cooling temperature. However, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEJARME (US 20200407241) in view of NOLL (US 20020020677).
Regarding claims 2-3, DEJARME teaches the liquid PFAS is injected into a thermal oxidizer in the thermal oxidation zone (via an inlet of the SCWO reactor; par. [0015]).
DEJARME is silent as to a liquid atomizing nozzle. However, NOLL teaches thermal processing system for farm animal waste (title) including injecting fluid into a thermal reactor via liquid atomizing nozzles (Fig. 1A #3; par. [0018]).
One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that liquid atomizing nozzles improve the efficiency of a thermal reactor by improving mass transport of small droplets into the reactor.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the method of DEJARME to including liquid atomizing nozzles of NOLL in order to improve the reactor efficiency as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of reactors. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 10,14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEJARME (US 20200407241) in view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation”.
Regarding claim 10, DEJARME teaches destruction of PFAS via an oxidation process (title) including a process for converting poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS; abstract) comprising:
passing a feed comprising liquid PFAS (e.g. Fig. 6A #402; par. [0009;0080]) into a thermal oxidation zone by injecting the liquid PFAS in the thermal oxidation zone, the thermal oxidation zone comprising a vessel (e.g. a high temperature oxidation reactor or SCWO; Fig. 6A #410; abstract; par. [0005,0080]); and,
thermally oxidizing the PFAS to a fluoride species and producing a thermal oxidation effluent (e.g. Fig. 6A #412 including sodium fluoride; par. [0060,0080]).
DEJARME teaches SCWO’s may use auxiliary fuels to generate a hydrothermal flame (par. [0006]), but does not specify or teach a flame in its SCWO. However, VADILLO teaches supercritical water oxidation (title) and that a hydrothermal flame in an SCWO has higher temperatures, reaction rates, and residence times which provide complete oxidation (P349/second full paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the method of DEJARME to including a flame as taught by VADILLO in order to provide complete oxidation as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of reactors. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 14, DEJARME teaches the thermally oxidizing is performed at a temperature between about 500 °C to about 700 °C (par. [0080]), which anticipates the claimed range of about 500 °C to about 2,300 °C.
Regarding claim 15, DEJARME teaches neutralizing (par. [0012]), in a reaction zone comprising a vessel (salt separator; Fig. 6A #414) with a solid reactant (alkali or a base of sodium or NaOH; par. [0060]), the fluoride species with the solid reactant; and,
converting, with the solid reactant in the reaction zone, any PFAS in the thermal oxidation effluent to a fluorine salt (e.g. sodium fluoride; Fig. 6A #416; par. [0060;0080]).
Regarding claim 16-17, DEJARME teaches cooling, in a cooling zone comprising a quench zone (par. [0060]), the thermal oxidation effluent (Fig. 5; par. [0076]) before passing the thermal oxidation effluent to the reaction zone (note recycle flows; par. [0012]).
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEJARME (US 20200407241) in view of VADILLO et. al. 2018 “Supercritical water oxidation” and NOLL (US 20020020677).
Regarding claims 11-13, DEJARME teaches the liquid PFAS is injected into a thermal oxidizer in the thermal oxidation zone (via an inlet of the SCWO reactor; par. [0015]).
DEJARME is silent as to a liquid atomizing nozzle. However, NOLL teaches thermal processing system for farm animal waste (title) including injecting fluid into a thermal reactor via liquid atomizing nozzles (Fig. 1A #3; par. [0018]).
One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that liquid atomizing nozzles improve the efficiency of a thermal reactor by improving mass transport of small droplets into the reactor.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the method of DEJARME to including liquid atomizing nozzles of NOLL in order to improve the reactor efficiency as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of reactors. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
ROSANSKY (US 11407666) discloses salt separation and destruction of PFAS utilizing reverse osmosis and salt separation.
YANG et. al. 1999 “Fluoride removal in a fixed bed packed with granular calcite”.
VERMA et. al. 2023 “Recent advances on PFAS degradation via thermal and nonthermal methods”.
LEWANDOWSKI 2000 “Design of thermal oxidation systems for volatile organic compounds”.
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~08:00~15:00.
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, VICKIE KIM can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights