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 .
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/454,948. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader, genus instant claims are encompassed in the narrower, species claim of application ‘948, which also claim a collecting unit configured to liquefy and collect a gas evaporated by the chemical liquid processing unit in claim 1 of ‘948, as outlined in the following claim comparison:
Claim 1: A processing system (‘948, claim 1 preamble), comprising:
a concentrator configured to concentrate a waste liquid containing an organic fluorine compound, discharged from a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (‘948, claim 1 “concentrator” clause); and
a chemical liquid processor configured to decompose and volatilize a concentrate concentrated by the concentrator (‘948, claim 1 “chemical liquid processor” clause).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/632,672, taken in combination. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader, genus instant claims are encompassed in the narrower, species claim of application ‘672, which specify a concentrator as being a developing liquid concentrator and the waste liquid being concentrated as a positive developing liquid in claims 1 and 8, respectively of ‘672, as outlined in the following claim comparison:
Claim 1: A processing system (‘672, claim 1 preamble), comprising:
a concentrator configured to concentrate a waste liquid containing an organic fluorine compound, discharged from a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (‘672, claim 1 “concentrator” clause and ‘672, claim 5 “to detoxify an organic fluorine compound by combustion”); and
a chemical liquid processor configured to decompose and volatilize a concentrate concentrated by the concentrator (‘672, claim 1 “chemical liquid processor” clause).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 10: A processing method, comprising: concentrating a waste liquid containing an organic fluorine compound, discharged from a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (‘672, claim 8 preamble and “concentrating” clause and ‘672, claim 5 “to detoxify an organic fluorine compound by combustion”); and
decomposing and volatilizing a concentrate concentrated in the concentrating of the waste liquid (‘672, claim 8, “decomposing and volatizing” clause).
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.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 3, “the concentrate passing through the first filter flows” lacks antecedent basis, as none of claims 1 and 2, nor the preceding clause of claim recite concentrate which is specifically passing or flowing through the first filter.
Claims 4 and 5 are indefinite, in view of their dependency on claim 3 which is deemed indefinite.
In claim 6, regarding “configured to separate a gas volatized…organic fluorine compound-rich gas and an organic fluorine compound-removed gas” is vague as to what property or structural feature of the claimed “first gas filter” is specifically tailored to the recited separation mechanism.
In claim 7, regarding “the first gas filter is configured to receive heat…chemical liquid processor”, it is unclear what structural feature of the filter enables receiving of heat (a specific inlet, or a material of construction having a heat-conducting property?), and unclear whether any structure is positively recited coupling the chemical liquid processor and the first gas filter for the receiving of heat.
In claim 8, regarding “the first gas filter is configured to take in exterior air…separate the exterior air into a first separation gas having a higher nitrogen concentration than air…second separation gas having a higher nitrogen concentration than air” is vague as to what properties or structural feature(s) of the claimed “first gas filter” are specifically tailored, for taking in exterior air, and specifically tailored to the recited separation mechanism, and the claim is ambiguous as to what is meant by “exterior” preceding air (exteriorly from the gas filter, or exteriorly from the processing system?); and,
“filter is configured to supply the first separation gas to the chemical liquid processor”, it is unclear what structural feature of the filter enables supplying of gas (a specific outlet from the filter, or a material of construction having a heat-conducting property?), and unclear whether any structure is positively recited coupling the chemical liquid processor and the first gas filter for the supplying of gas.
In claim 9, it is unclear whether or not the recited “organic fluorine compound” refers back to the same compound which is introduced in independent claim 1 or to a different compound, and whether “a gas volatilized” refers to the same or a different material than that of the “volatilize a concentrate”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 does not further limit the subject matter of system claim 1 since the claim only recites functional and intended use of the system processor being for decomposing and volatizing the concentrate with a liquid containing hot, concentrated sulfuric acid, without reciting any corresponding system structural feature for storing, providing or heating such sulfuric acid.
Claim 7 does not further limit the subject matter of system claim 1 since the claim only recites functional and intended use of the first gas filter for receiving heat and , without reciting any corresponding system structural feature for storing, providing or heating such sulfuric acid.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
Dependent claims 2, 6-9 and 12 are interpreted and evaluated for novelty and non-obviousness with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, as directed only to the claim limitations which correspond to positively recited system structure or structural features, (see details of the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections which follow).
The MPEP at Section 2114 provides Court Decisions where it has been ruled that functional and intended use limitations in apparatus claims and recitations of what a device does, instead of what a device is, do not distinguish or make non-obvious apparatus claims if the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa patent 6,379,548 In view of Strathmann et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0155885 (Strathmann).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Document is identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For claim 1, Kurokawa discloses: A processing system, comprising:
a concentrator (reverse osmosis or RO device 10 or 23 as illustrated in figures 1 and 3) configured to concentrate a waste liquid containing an organic fluorine compound, discharged from a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (see figures ; and column 3, lines 53-column 4, line 15 regarding such RO device treating effluent water containing organic matter and fluorine and column 1, lines 5-15 regarding such water being effluent waste liquid discharged from plants for manufacturing semiconductors)
a chemical liquid processor configured to react with and volatilize a concentrate concentrated by the concentrator (combination of reactor 25 and an evaporator-dryer 26/29/30 to react with the fluorine by converting it to calcium fluoride in the reactor followed by subjecting the calcium fluoride to evaporation and dryness as discussed at column 4, lines 7-20, column 7, lines 26-35 and the flow chart of figure 1 described at column 8, lines 15-25.
Claim 1 differs by requiring that the chemical liquid processor is configured to decompose, rather than merely react with, the concentrate.
Strathmann teaches treatment of fluorine-containing liquid effluent waste in the form of perfluoro- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, such as discharged from electronics [0003 and 0004]. Strathmann teaches systems utilizing a hydrothermal reactor for mineralizing and destroying such fluorine-containing PFAS on-site, thus in a compact arrangement [0011-0013], the arrangement being operable as a mobile unit [0041]. Strathmann teaches such reactor as being a sealed hydrothermal reactor and designed to subject withstand increased high pressures and temperatures, enabling disposal products to be produced directly from the [0012-0013 and 0047-0048]. Strathmann also teaches the reactor as effective to produce reacted materials that can be safely disposed of [0051-0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have modified the chemical liquid processor in the system of Kurokawa, by designing the reactor to be sealed and built to withstand such increased high pressures and temperatures, thus immediately decompose the concentrate including organic fluorine compounds encompassed in the concentrate in the reactor, as taught by Strathmann. Such modifications would have been obvious, so as to minimize environmental disposal and minimize the need for further processing of the waste liquid-obtained concentrate, and also so as to enable the system to be constructed as a more compact, mobile collection of components.
For claim 2, Kurokawa lacks any disclosure of wherein the chemical liquid processor specifically decomposes and volatilizes the concentrate with a liquid containing hot concentrated sulfuric acid, however does teach the concentrate being treated including in the processor, as optionally containing acid (column 3, lines 55-57).
Strathmann teaches the reactor as including a reactor amendment that may be selected from among strong acids including sulfuric acid (H2SO4), [0012-0014].
However presence of such a material in the processor constitutes mere functionality and intended use of the claimed processor and doesn’t correspond to any positively recited particular structural feature of the processor, or other system component. It is noted that no source of such acid, or means for separately heating the acid or for introducing acid to the processor or reactor, separately from the concentrate is being claimed.
Additionally, the MPEP at Section 2114 provides Court Decisions where it has been ruled that functional and intended use limitations in apparatus claims and recitations of what a device does, instead of what a device, is do not distinguish or make non-obvious apparatus claims if the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
Optionally, it would have been also obvious and advantageous to have utilized added sulfuric acid in the Kurokawa system processor, or provided structure to introduce such acid into the processor, in order to accelerate and optimize reacting and decomposing of fluorine and other concentrate components in the processor.
For claim 3, Kurokawa further discloses the system of Claim 2, further comprising: a first path, serving as a circulation path connected to the concentrator;
such first, circulation path, as being provided with a first filter in a portion thereof (figure 1 illustrating flow arrows for filtrate from RO filter 23 passing through adsorbing column-containing device 26/27 which removes ions from the filtrate, thus filters such ions, see also Example 1 flow chart in columns 7-8 and description of column 4, lines 2-4 and 23-26 to such adsorption column as removing residual fluorine from the water permeating through the RO filter or membrane) ;
a second path through which a filtrate of the concentrate passing through the first filter flows, and
a filtrate storage connected to the second path, and configured to store the filtrate therein (figure 1 illustrating flow line coupling the absorber column 26/27 and filtrate storage container 32, and described as collecting permeating water (column 4, lines 27-32 and being a raw water tank at column 8, line 28).
For claim 10, Kurokawa discloses: A processing method, comprising:
concentrating a waste liquid containing an organic fluorine compound, discharged from a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (reverse osmosis or RO device 10 or 23 as illustrated in figures 1 and 3 and described at column 3, lines 53-column 4, line 15 regarding such RO device treating effluent water containing organic matter and fluorine and column 1, lines 5-15 regarding such water being effluent waste liquid discharged from plants for manufacturing semiconductors)
a chemical liquid processor configured to react with and volatilize a concentrate concentrated by the concentrator (combination of reactor 25 and an evaporator-dryer 26/29/30 to react with the fluorine by converting it to calcium fluoride in the reactor followed by subjecting the calcium fluoride to evaporation and dryness as discussed at column 4, lines 7-20, column 7, lines 26-35 and the flow chart of figure 1 described at column 8, lines 15-25.
Claim 10 differs by requiring that the chemical liquid processor is configured to decompose, rather than merely react with, the concentrate.
Strathmann teaches treatment of fluorine-containing liquid effluent waste in the form of perfluoro- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, such as discharged from electronics [0003 and 0004]. Strathmann teaches systems utilizing a hydrothermal reactor for mineralizing and destroying such fluorine-containing PFAS on-site, thus in a compact arrangement [0011-0013], the arrangement being operable as a mobile unit [0041]. Strathmann teaches such reactor as being a sealed hydrothermal reactor and designed to subject withstand increased high pressures and temperatures, enabling disposal products to be produced directly from the [0012-0013 and 0047-0048]. Strathmann also teaches the reactor as effective to produce reacted materials that can be safely disposed of [0051-0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have modified the chemical liquid processor provided in the method of Kurokawa, by designing the reactor to be sealed and built to withstand such increased high pressures and temperatures, thus immediately decompose the concentrate including organic fluorine compounds encompassed in the concentrate in the reactor, as taught by Strathmann. Such modifications would have been obvious, so as to minimize environmental disposal and minimize the need for further processing of the waste liquid-obtained concentrate, and also so as to enable the system to be constructed as a more compact, mobile collection of components.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa patent 6,379,548 In view of Strathmann et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0155885 (Strathmann), as applied to claims 1-3 and 10 above, and further in view of Mori et al patent 6,464,877 (Mori).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Document is identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 11 further differs from Kurokawa as modified by Strathmann, by requiring the processing method of Claim 10, as further comprising:
cleaning a first filter used in the concentrating of the waste liquid by introducing a filtrate of the concentrate passing through the first filter from an outlet side of the first filter.
Mori teaches cleaning of industrial or waste water to be treated by membrane filtration to provide filtrate with a high quality (column 1, lines 9-14) and teaches a line or flowpath for returning backwards-flowing permeate or filtrate flow from a filtrate tank for backwashing the membrane filter at column 6, lines 10-18. Mori teaches such backwashing as effective to maintain long-term filtration performance (column 6, lines 64-67).
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Kurokawa method, by providing for such cleaning of a first filter of the RO membrane, as taught by Mori, so as to maintain long-term filtration performance.
Claims 6-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa patent 6,379,548 in view of Strathmann et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0155885 (Strathmann), as applied to claims 1-3 and 10 above, and further in view of Aulbaugh et al patent 5,628,969 (Aulbaugh).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Document is identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 6 further differs from the system of Kurokawa as modified by Strathmann, by requiring the system as further comprising:
a first gas filter configured to separate a gas volatilized by the chemical liquid processor into an organic fluorine compound-rich gas and an organic fluorine compound- removed gas.
Aulbaugh teaches a system for chemically reacting volatile, organic contaminants from soil (column 1, lines 5-22) and then separating the volatilized substances from each other (column 1, lines 5-13), by providing a gas filter through which exiting volatized gases and vapors must pass to separate gases from each other (column 1, lines 5-13, filter 1 including first, internal gas filter 70 (column 3, lines 22-23 and column 4, lines 56-62). Aulbaugh teaches such filtered, volatized material as directed to off-gas treatment systems for further processing or discharge to the atmosphere (column 4, line 65-column 5, line 3).
It would have been additionally obvious to have further modified the system of Kurokawa as modified by Strathmann, by incorporation of such gas filter, as taught by Aulbaugh, to facilitate directing of volatized material to off-gas treatment systems for further processing, hence recovering contaminant material or discharge to the atmosphere.
However recitation of the gas filter as specifically separating a gas volatilized by the chemical liquid processor into an organic fluorine compound-rich gas and an organic fluorine compound- removed gas constitutes mere functionality and intended use of the claimed gas filter and doesn’t correspond to any positively recited particular structural feature of the gas filter, or other system component.
Additionally, the MPEP at Section 2114 provides Court Decisions where it has been ruled that functional and intended use limitations in apparatus claims and recitations of what a device does, instead of what a device, is do not distinguish or make non-obvious apparatus claims if the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
For claim 7, none of Kurokawa, Strathmann or Aulbaugh teaches wherein the first gas filter is specifically configured to receive heat generated in the chemical liquid processor to have a temperature higher than the concentrate.
However, Kurokawa further teaches a hydrothermal reactor for reacting fluorine contaminants in the form of PFAS contaminants (see details of the 103 rejection of claim 1) in which such reactor can be heated to a high temperature of between 374 to about 700 degrees C [0048].
Kurokawa also teaches that such reactor, associated therewith or encompassed within, may also be provided with heat exchangers and temperature and pressure controllers [0047]. Therefore, Aulbaugh and Kurokawa cumulatively suggest a first gas filter associated with the chemical liquid processor reactor being configured to receive heat generated in any other system structural component, and to have a controlled temperature which may be lower or higher than the concentrate.
However recitations of the gas filter as specifically receiving heat generated in the chemical liquid processor and to have a temperature higher than the concentrate each constitutes mere functionality and intended methods of operation of the claimed gas filter and don’t correspond to any positively recited particular structural feature of the gas filter, or other system component. It is noted that claim 7 lacks recitation of any structure for placing the gas filter and processor in heat exchange communication.
Additionally, the MPEP at Section 2114 provides Court Decisions where it has been ruled that functional and intended use limitations in apparatus claims and recitations of what a device does, instead of what a device, is do not distinguish or make non-obvious apparatus claims if the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
For claim 8, neither Kurokawa, nor Strathmann teach a second gas filter configured to take in exterior air and configured to separate the exterior air into a first separation gas having a higher nitrogen concentration than air and a second separation gas having a higher oxygen concentration than the air,
wherein the second gas filter is configured to supply the first separation gas to the chemical liquid processor.
However Aulbaugh teaches a system for chemically reacting volatile, organic contaminants from soil (column 1, lines 5-22) and then separating the volatilized substances from each other (column 1, lines 5-13), by providing a 1st gas filter through which exiting volatized gases and vapors must pass to separate gases from each other (column 1, lines 5-13, regarding first, internal gas filter 70 and column 3, lines 22-23 and column 4, lines 56-62 regarding the filter as promoting the separation of volatile and non-volatile substances from each other). Aulbaugh teaches such filtered, volatized material as directed to off-gas treatment systems for further processing or discharge to the atmosphere (column 4, line 65-column 5, line 3).
Aulbaugh also teaches such filtered, volatized material as directed to off-gas treatment systems 110 for further processing or discharge to the atmosphere which may include “conventional separators” and “absorption/adsorption beds”, thus forms of one of more 2nd filters (column 4, line 65-column 5, line 3 and column 5, lines 22-27). Taken in combination with text of Aulbaugh at column 4, lines 56-62 regarding the filter as promoting the separation of volatile and non-volatile substances from each other, the 2nd filters are suggested as also operable for separation of volatile and non-volatile substances from each other; Aulbaugh teaches such filtered, volatized material as directed to off-gas treatment systems for further processing or discharge to the atmosphere (column 4, line 65-column 5, line 3).
Thus, It would have been additionally obvious to have further modified the system of Kurokawa as modified by Strathmann, by incorporation of such 1st and 2nd gas filters, as taught by Aulbaugh, to facilitate directing of volatized material to off-gas treatment systems for further processing, hence recovering contaminant material or discharge to the atmosphere.
However recitations of the 2nd gas filter being configured to take in exterior air and configured to separate the exterior air into a first separation gas having a higher nitrogen concentration than air and a second separation gas having a higher oxygen concentration than the air, and,
wherein the second gas filter is configured to supply the first separation gas to the chemical liquid processor, constitute mere functionality and intended use of the claimed gas filter and don’t correspond to any positively recited particular structural feature of the gas filter, or other system component. It is noted that no structure such as one or more filter inlets, specific features of the 2nd gas filters directed to separation of specifically nitrogen and oxygen, or fluid communication features or conduits coupling the 2nd gas filter to the chemical liquid processor is recited.
Additionally, the MPEP at Section 2114 provides Court Decisions where it has been ruled that functional and intended use limitations in apparatus claims and recitations of what a device does, instead of what a device, is do not distinguish or make non-obvious apparatus claims if the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
For claim 9, Aulbaugh further suggests a combustion detoxifying device configured to burn and detoxify an organic fluorine compound contained in a gas volatilized by the chemical liquid processor and ,
a second gas filter (combustion detoxifying device and 2nd filter suggested in column 5, lines 21-28 regarding “catalytic reactors” (suggesting a “combustion detoxifying device”) and “conventional separators and absorption/adsorption beds” (suggesting types of 2nd filters)).
Thus, It would have been additionally obvious to have further modified the system of Kurokawa as modified by Strathmann, by incorporation of such 1st and 2nd gas filters, as taught by Aulbaugh, to facilitate directing of volatized material to off-gas treatment systems for further processing, hence recovering contaminant material or discharge to the atmosphere (Aulbaugh at column 5, lines 1-3 and 25-28) .
However recitation of wherein the second gas filter supplies the second separation gas to the combustion detoxifying device constitutes mere functionality and intended use of the claimed 2nd gas filter and doesn’t correspond to any positively recited particular structural feature of the gas filter, or other system component. It is noted that no structure such as fluid communication features or conduit(s) coupling the 2nd gas filter to the combustion detoxifying device is recited.
Additionally, the MPEP at Section 2114 provides Court Decisions where it has been ruled that functional and intended use limitations in apparatus claims and recitations of what a device does, instead of what a device, is do not distinguish or make non-obvious apparatus claims if the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 further differs from the method of Kurokawa as modified by Strathmann, by requiring the method as further comprising separating a gas volatilized by the chemical liquid processor into an organic fluorine compound-rich gas and an organic fluorine compound- removed gas.
Aulbaugh teaches a method for chemically reacting volatile, organic contaminants from soil (column 1, lines 5-22) and then separating the volatilized substances from each other (column 1, lines 5-13), by providing a gas filter through which exiting volatized gases and vapors must pass to separate gases from each other (column 1, lines 5-13, filter 1 including first, internal gas filter 70 (column 3, lines 22-23 and column 4, lines 56-62). Aulbaugh teaches such filtered, volatized material as directed to off-gas treatment systems for further processing or discharge to the atmosphere (column 4, line 65-column 5, line 3).
It would have been additionally obvious to have further modified the method of Kurokawa as modified by Strathmann, by incorporation of such gas filter, as taught by Aulbaugh, to facilitate directing of volatized material to off-gas treatment systems for further processing, hence recovering contaminant material or discharge to the atmosphere.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of recitation of the processing method of Claim 12, further comprising separating, through a second gas filter, exterior air into a first separation gas having a higher nitrogen concentration than air and a second separation gas having a higher oxygen concentration than the air, and supplying the first separation gas to a processor configured to perform the decomposing and volatizing of the concentrate. None of Kurokawa, Strathmann, or Aulbaugh, or any of the prior art teaches or suggests gas separation into components specifically having relatively higher nitrogen and oxygen concentrations than the air, respectively.
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of recitation of the processing system of Claim 3, further comprising: a third path disposed downstream of the filtrate storage;
a bypass path connecting the third path and the second path; and
a liquid feeder configured to pressurize a liquid within the bypass path to cause the liquid to flow backwards in the second path to be introduced into the first path from an outlet side of the first filter.
Kurokawa lacks any teaching of such bypass path connecting a path downstream of the filter storage in combination with such 2nd path through which a filtrate of the concentrate connected to filtrate storage flows, in combination with a liquid feeder, configured to pressurize a liquid within the bypass path to cause the liquid to flow backwards in the second path to be introduced into the first path. Instead Kurokawa is requiring all filtrate or permeate to travel through the 2nd path to the filter storage .
Mori et al patent 6,464,877 teaches cleaning of industrial or waste water to be treated by membrane filtration to provide filtrate with a high quality (column 1, lines 9-14) and teaches a line or flowpath for returning backwards-flowing permeate or filtrate flow from a filtrate tank for backwashing the membrane filter at column 6, lines 10-18, however does not suggest the claimed arrangement of bypass path connecting flow paths upstream and downstream of a filtrate storage, with the backwards flowing permeate or filtrate flowing directly from the filtrate storage for such filter backwashing.
Claim 5 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of its dependence on claim 4 which is deemed non-obvious and distinguished.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following are of particular interest: Neresini et al Patent Publication WO 2020/012371 concerning decontaminating water contaminated by organofluorine compounds including PFAS, by steps of filtration, concentration, reverse osmosis and pyrolysis, and Patent Publication JP 2008/299657 concerning electrodialysis, reverse osmosis and ion exchange treatment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
07/30/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights