DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/620,189 application filed 28 March 2024, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “oxidation zone” in claims 1 and 20; “dry sorbent injection zone” in claims 1, 6-7, and 9-10; “selective catalytic reaction zone” in claims 1 and 11; “wet scrubber zone” in claims 1 and 12; “ion exchange zone” in claims 1 and 16-17; and a filtration zone in claims 9 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, an oxidation zone has been interpreted as “containing at least one reactor vessel” as recited in paragraph 0030 of the published application; a selective catalytic reaction zone has been interpreted as comprising a reactor as disclosed in paragraph 0066 of the published application [“The reactor in the selective catalytic reaction zone…]; an ion exchange zone has been interpreted as “a medium, typically a resin, that selectively removes ions” as disclosed in paragraph 0055 of the published application]; and a filtration zone has been interpreted as comprising a filter “and/or an electrostatic precipitator (ESP)” as disclosed in paragraph 0063 of the published application.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the thermal oxidation zone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps claim 2 should recite "the thermal oxidation zone in claims 4 and 15.
Claim 2 recites “…between 90 to 99.9999% of the PFAS in the feed stream is thermally oxidized in the thermal oxidation zone.” It is unclear what the basis of the percentage is; consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
Claim 10 recites “recycling the residue stream to the dry sorbent injection zone as at least a portion of the reactant.” The residue stream is obtained from the filtration zone, which is part of the dry sorbent injection zone [see claim 9]. Thus, it appears that the residue stream is recycled to the same zone from which it is derived, which raises the question as to whether the residue stream is actually recycled since there is no need to recycle it. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
Claim limitations “dry sorbent injection zone” and “wet scrubber zone” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure(s) that perform(s) the function in the claim. Particularly, with respect to the wet scrubber zone, the disclosure states “[t]he treatment zone may include the wet scrubber zone, and the process may also include mixing an aqueous caustic stream with the oxidation effluent to provide the treated effluent…The process may include separating the treated effluent into a liquid stream and a vent gas stream” [paragraph 0014]. It is not clear the extent to which one might infer the necessary structures of the wet scrubber zone based on the processes that may be included that are discussed in the aforementioned paragraph. Therefore, claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, and 12 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 12-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newman et al (US 11,339,337).
With respect to claims 1, 3, 6, and 9, Newman et al discloses “methods to eliminate PFAS from wastewater biosolids through fluidized bed gasification. The gasifier decomposes the PFAS in the biosolids at temperatures of 900-1800° F. Synthesis gas (syngas) exits the gasifier which is coupled to a thermal oxidizer and is combusted at temperatures of 1600-2600° F. This decomposes PFAS in the syngas and creates flue gas. Heat can be recovered from the flue gas by cooling the flue gas to temperatures of 400-1200° F. in a heat exchanger that is coupled with the thermal oxidizer. Cooled flue gas is mixed with hydrated lime, enhancing PFAS decomposition, with the spent lime filtered from the cooled flue gas using a filter system that may incorporate catalyst impregnated filter elements” [abstract], wherein the cooled flue gas corresponds to the oxidation effluent of the instant application and the hydrated lime and/or filter system corresponds to the dry sorbent [see column 4, lines 10-11: “…with hydrated lime or other calcium-based sorbent.” See, also, column 5, lines 26-27, column 8, lines 2-6: “[i]n the depicted example, lime is injected into the filter unit duct 150 at the exit from the heat exchanger 145. The spent sorbent is removed in the filter unit 155 and the filtered cooled flue gas released through the exhaust 160…” and column 9, lines 57-59: “…a dry sorbent injection system utilizing lime or hydrated lime with a catalyst impregnated filter.”]. The aforementioned lime injected into the filter unit duct corresponds to the dry sorbent injection zone. Additionally, lime may correspond to the reactant of instant claim 6 since the reference teaches “[t]he calcium in the lime will react with the fluorine in the PFAS to break down the more stable chain substances to allow for formation of hydrogenated, rather than fluorinated, alkanes which are much less stable and can be more easily decomposed” [column 6, lines 35-39].
With respect to claim 4, Newman et al discloses a residence time of 1-5 seconds [see, e.g., column 3, lines 57-60].
With respect to claim 5, the teaching of cooling the flue gas to temperatures of 400-1200° F. in a heat exchanger corresponds to the cooling step of the instant claim.
With respect to claim 8, see the second heat exchanger 145 downstream of filter 155 [figure 2].
With respect to claims 12 and 13, the hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2), also known as caustic lime, corresponds to the aqueous caustic stream.
With respect to claim 20, see first heat exchanger 145 upstream of hydrated lime addition in figure 2.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al (US 11,339,337).
With respect to claim 2, while Newman et al does not appear to explicitly the percentage of PFAS removal in the thermal oxidation zone, it is obvious to remove as much PFAS from wastewater biosolids as economically or financially possible. Additionally, since the thermal oxidizer conditions of Newman et al are the same as or similar to those of the instant application (see, e.g., the combustion temperature discussed above), it is expected that the percentage of PFAS removal in the thermal oxidation zone is the same or similar as well, absent evidence to the contrary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10-11, and 14-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 7, the aforementioned spent lime (or sorbent) does not appear to be regenerated, let alone recycled; instead, the reference merely teaches “…spent lime is removed in the filter unit” [see, e.g., claim 1]; Newman et al further discloses “[t]he calcium in the lime will react with the fluorine in the PFAS to break down the more stable chain substances to allow for formation of hydrogenated, rather than fluorinated, alkanes…” and “[t]he mixing of any remaining PFAS compounds in the flue gas and passing through the filter cake of lime in the filter device used to remove the spent lime from the gas stream provides a final polishing step whereby the calcium in the lime can attack the fluorine bonds in the PFAS. This reaction…” Consequently, one may infer that the reaction product of lime and the fluorine in PFAS compounds yields CaF2, which is the principal source of hydrogen fluoride, a commodity chemical used to produce a wide range of materials. Moreover, CaF2 is used to manufacture optical components such as windows and lenses, used in thermal imaging systems, spectroscopy, telescopes, and excimer lasers (used for photolithography in the form of a fused lens); it is not clear that it would be obvious to convert CaF2 to lime (i.e., regenerate lime) and recycle to the process instead of selling CaF2 as a commodity for the production of HF and/or optical components. With respect to claim 11, contact with lime occurs upstream of the filter 155 rather than downstream; thus, if there was an embodiment in which contact with lime corresponds to the selective catalytic reaction zone, the zone does not receive a vent or flue gas from filter 155; with respect to claim 14, the reference does not teach a liquid stream; instead, see, e.g., the teaching in column 10, lines 20-25; with respect to claim 17, Newman et al does not teach the ion exchange zone or carbon bed or sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al in the Journal of Hazardous Materials (2011, vol 192, pp 1067-1071), which discloses “[t]he results of the thermogravimetry and differential scanning calorimetry analyses indicate that PFOS gasified directly during the thermal treatment process when the temperature was increased to around 425 °C. However, the formation of CaF2 at 350 °C suggests that the presence of Ca(OH)2 in the mixture can lead to the decomposition of PFOS at 350 °C, which is lower than the decomposition temperature of PFOS alone (425 °C). The increase of temperature promoted a solid state reaction between PFOS and Ca(OH)2, and also enhanced the interaction between the gaseous products of PFOS and CaO (or Ca(OH)2)…a significant formation of CaF2 was observed at temperatures 350 and 400 °C, which indicates the effective solid state interaction between Ca(OH)2 and PFOS. The formation of CaF2 at these two temperatures suggest that Ca(OH)2 triggered the decomposition of PFOS at a temperature lower than its gasification temperature (425 °C).”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
28 August 2026
Prosecution Insights