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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 30 August 2024 is acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a map of the environmental site including location data in three dimensions (claim 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12-17 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 12 recites the limitations "collecting a sample of the PFAS formulation at the site" (note this relates to a single sample at some location) and then later refers only to "a plurality of samples collected at known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation." The claim never refers again to the single collected sample, and it is unclear whether the following steps are to rely on this sample. For the purpose of examination, the collecting limitation is interpreted as if referring to collecting a plurality of samples collected at known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation, and the "a plurality of samples collected at known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation" is read as "the plurality of samples collected at known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation."
Claims 13-17 depend from claim 12 and are likewise unclear and deficient under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2024 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106. (Note: the claim limitations below considered to fall within an abstract idea are highlighted in bold font; the remaining features are "additional elements.")
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2024 PEG asks whether a claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-4 are directed to a method, and therefore fall within a statutory category.
Claims 5-11 are directed to a method, and therefore fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One
Step 2A, Prong One of the 2024 PEG asks whether the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The claims recite:
1. A method of characterizing a PFAS formulation, comprising:
obtaining one or more samples including a PFAS formulation;
preparing a dilution series of the PFAS formulation;
measuring a static surface tension for each member of the dilution series of the PFAS formulation;
plotting the measured static surface tension for each member of the dilution series versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create an emergent behavior curve; and
using the emergent behavior curve, assigning a PFAS formulation concentration range for each of a non-emergent dispersive concentration range, a weakly emergent concentration range, and a strongly emergent behavior concentration range.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising measuring a static surface tension for each of the one or more samples, and by comparing the static surface tension to the emergent behavior curve determining a concentration of the PFAS formulation in each of the one or more samples.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more samples are obtained from an environmental site that is contaminated by the PFAS formulation.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising using the emergent behavior curve to correlate the determined concentration of the PFAS formulation in each of the one or more samples with a probability that the PFAS formulation for each environmental sample will shed additional PFAS at the environmental site.
5. A method of characterizing an environmental site contaminated with a PFAS formulation, comprising:
obtaining one or more samples at a plurality of locations within the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation;
preparing a dilution series of the PFAS formulation;
measuring a static surface tension for each member of the dilution series of the PFAS formulation;
plotting the measured static surface tension for each member of the dilution series versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create an emergent behavior curve;
using the emergent behavior curve, assigning a PFAS formulation concentration range for each of a non-emergent dispersive concentration range, a weakly emergent concentration range, and a strongly emergent behavior concentration range;
measuring a static surface tension for each of the one or more obtained samples; and
using the emergent behavior curve to estimate an environmental PFAS formulation concentration at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising creating a map of the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation showing which of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained includes an environmental PFAS formulation concentration that is within the non-emergent dispersive concentration range, includes an environmental PFAS formulation concentration that is within the weakly emergent concentration range, and includes an environmental PFAS formulation concentration that is within the strongly emergent behavior concentration range.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the map of the environmental site includes location data in three dimensions.
8. The method of claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of environmental samples includes a water sample from the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation.
9. The method of claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of environmental samples is prepared by a water extraction of a solid or semi-solid sample from the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation.
10. The method of claim 5, further comprising using the emergent behavior curve to estimate a total oxidizable precursor concentration of the environmental PFAS formulation at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained.
11. The method of claim 5, further comprising correlating, using the emergent behavior curve, the estimated PFAS formulation concentration at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained with a probability that the PFAS formulation contaminant at each of the plurality of locations will shed additional PFAS into an environment of that location.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 comprises a series of method steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "plotting the measured static surface tension for each member of the dilution series versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create an emergent behavior curve; and using the emergent behavior curve, assigning a PFAS formulation concentration range for each of a non-emergent dispersive concentration range, a weakly emergent concentration range, and a strongly emergent behavior concentration range" describes an abstract idea that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the groupings of mathematical concepts/mental processes.
The highlighted portion of claim 2 comprises a method step that falls within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "by comparing the static surface tension to the emergent behavior curve determining a concentration of the PFAS formulation in each of the one or more samples" describes an abstract idea that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the groupings of mathematical concepts/mental processes.
The highlighted portion of claim 4 comprises a method step that falls within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "using the emergent behavior curve to correlate the determined concentration of the PFAS formulation in each of the one or more samples with a probability that the PFAS formulation for each environmental sample will shed additional PFAS at the environmental site" describes an abstract idea that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the groupings of mathematical concepts/mental processes.
The highlighted portion of claim 5 comprises a series of method steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "plotting the measured static surface tension for each member of the dilution series versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create an emergent behavior curve; using the emergent behavior curve, assigning a PFAS formulation concentration range for each of a non-emergent dispersive concentration range, a weakly emergent concentration range, and a strongly emergent behavior concentration range; … and using the emergent behavior curve to estimate an environmental PFAS formulation concentration at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained" describes an abstract idea that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the groupings of mathematical concepts/mental processes.
The highlighted portion of claim 6 comprises a method step that falls within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "creating a map of the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation showing which of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained includes an environmental PFAS formulation concentration that is within the non-emergent dispersive concentration range, includes an environmental PFAS formulation concentration that is within the weakly emergent concentration range, and includes an environmental PFAS formulation concentration that is within the strongly emergent behavior concentration range" describes an abstract idea that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the groupings of mathematical concepts/mental processes.
The highlighted portion of claim 7 further defines the step of claim 6, and does not make the abstract idea any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 10 comprises a method step that falls within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "using the emergent behavior curve to estimate a total oxidizable precursor concentration of the environmental PFAS formulation at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained" describes an abstract idea that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the groupings of mathematical concepts/mental processes.
The highlighted portion of claim 11 comprises a method step that falls within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "correlating, using the emergent behavior curve, the estimated PFAS formulation concentration at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained with a probability that the PFAS formulation contaminant at each of the plurality of locations will shed additional PFAS into an environment of that location" describes an abstract idea that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the groupings of mathematical concepts/mental processes.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2024 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is "directed to" the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements: 1) "obtaining one or more samples at a plurality of locations within the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation;" 2) "preparing a dilution series of the PFAS formulation;" and 3) "measuring a static surface tension for each member of the dilution series of the PFAS formulation."
Limitation 1 is directed toward obtaining contaminated samples. This corresponds to data gathering, and is recited at a high level of generality. This limitation is thus extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
Limitations 2 and 3 are directed toward preparing a dilution series and measuring static surface tensions for the dilution series. This also corresponds to data gathering, and is recited at a high level of generality. Moreover, these limitations are a necessary precursor for application of the identified abstract idea of the claim. This limitation is thus extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
At best, limitations 1-3 merely link the abstract idea to a field of use (PFAS monitoring), and fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Claim 2 recites the additional element: "measuring a static surface tension for each of the one or more samples." This also corresponds to data gathering, and is recited at a high level of generality. This limitation is thus extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites the additional element: "wherein the one or more samples are obtained from an environmental site that is contaminated by the PFAS formulation." This merely limits the environment from which samples are obtained (i.e., selects a particular type of data for manipulation). This limitation is thus extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. At best, this merely links the abstract idea to a field of use (PFAS monitoring).
Claim 5 recites the additional elements: 1) "obtaining one or more samples at a plurality of locations within the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation;" 2) "preparing a dilution series of the PFAS formulation;" 3) "measuring a static surface tension for each member of the dilution series of the PFAS formulation;" and 4) "measuring a static surface tension for each of the one or more obtained samples."
Limitations 1 and 4 are directed toward obtaining contaminated samples and measuring static surface tensions for the samples. This corresponds to data gathering, and is recited at a high level of generality. Moreover, these limitations are a necessary precursor for application of the identified abstract idea of the claim. This limitation is thus extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
Limitations 2 and 3 are directed toward preparing a dilution series and measuring static surface tensions for the dilution series. This also corresponds to data gathering, and is recited at a high level of generality. Moreover, these limitations are a necessary precursor for application of the identified abstract idea of the claim. This limitation is thus extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
At best, limitations 1-4 merely link the abstract idea to a field of use (PFAS monitoring), and fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Claim 8 recites the additional element: "wherein each of the plurality of environmental samples includes a water sample from the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation." This merely limits the sample type and the environment from which samples are obtained (i.e., selects a particular type of data for manipulation). This limitation is thus extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. At best, this merely links the abstract idea to a field of use (PFAS monitoring).
Claim 9 recites the additional element: "wherein each of the plurality of environmental samples is prepared by a water extraction of a solid or semi-solid sample from the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation." This merely limits the sample type and the environment from which samples are obtained (i.e., selects a particular type of data for manipulation). This limitation is thus extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. At best, this merely links the abstract idea to a field of use (PFAS monitoring).
Claims 1-11 thus require further analysis under Step 2B.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2024 PEG asks whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
With regards to claim 1, the identified additional elements correspond to data gathering as above. In view of the considerations outlined in MPEP 2106.05, these elements do not add an inventive concept to the claim because, even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, do not apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
With regards to claim 2, the identified additional element corresponds to data gathering as above. In view of the considerations outlined in MPEP 2106.05, this element does not add an inventive concept to the claim because, even when considered in combination with other elements, this additional element does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, does not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, does not apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, and does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
With regards to claim 3, the identified additional element corresponds to selecting a particular type of data for manipulation as above. In view of the considerations outlined in MPEP 2106.05, this element does not add an inventive concept to the claim because, even when considered in combination with other elements, this additional element does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, does not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, does not apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, and does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
With regards to claim 5, the identified additional elements correspond to data gathering as above. In view of the considerations outlined in MPEP 2106.05, these elements do not add an inventive concept to the claim because, even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, do not apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
With regards to claim 8, the identified additional element corresponds to selecting a particular type of data for manipulation as above. In view of the considerations outlined in MPEP 2106.05, this element does not add an inventive concept to the claim because, even when considered in combination with other elements, this additional element does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, does not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, does not apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, and does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
With regards to claim 9, the identified additional element corresponds to selecting a particular type of data for manipulation as above. In view of the considerations outlined in MPEP 2106.05, this element does not add an inventive concept to the claim because, even when considered in combination with other elements, this additional element does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, does not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, does not apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, and does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claims 1-11 therefore constitute ineligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0256997 to Coffin et al. (hereinafter referred to as Coffin), US 2024/0010524 to Singh et al. (hereinafter referred to as Singh), and US 9,483,846 to Fan et al. (hereinafter referred to as Fan).
With regards to claim 1, Coffin teaches a method of characterizing a PFAS formulation, comprising:
obtaining one or more samples including a PFAS formulation (at least 20 samples as per [0084]-[0086], select PFAS are also identified in fig. 22 and 23);
measuring a static surface tension for each of the one or more obtained samples (see fig. 22 and [0084]-[0086], note that the surface tension measured is understood to be static surface tension based on the disclosure of [0048]); and
plotting the measured static surface tension for each sample versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create a curve (see fig. 22 and [0084]-[0086]).
Coffin does not expressly teach:
preparing a dilution series of the PFAS formulation;
measuring a static surface tension for each member of the dilution series of the PFAS formulation;
plotting the measured static surface tension for each member of the dilution series versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create an emergent behavior curve; and
using the emergent behavior curve, assigning a PFAS formulation concentration range for each of a non-emergent dispersive concentration range, a weakly emergent concentration range, and a strongly emergent behavior concentration range.
However, preparing a dilution series of a standard substance, establishing a standard curve for each member of the dilution series, and then identifying a property of an unknown substance by comparison to the standard curves is a well-established analytical technique in chemistry. To give one example, Singh teaches that it has hitherto been known to use this technique to identify concentrations of PFAS-related substances. See [0137]. In view hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this technique to identify PFAS formulation properties based on some known relationship. In the instant case, Coffin teaches that there is a relationship between static surface tension and concentration, and Singh teaches that serial dilutions can be used to build standard curves to estimate concentration. Specifically, it would have been obvious to prepare a dilution series of a PFAS formulation, measure a static surface tension for each member of the dilution series of the PFAS formulation, and then plot the measured static surface tension for each member of the dilution series versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create an emergent behavior curve (corresponding to the standard curve in Singh). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to be able to estimate concentration from the surface tension of a sample.
Where this combination differs from the claimed invention is in: using the emergent behavior curve, assigning a PFAS formulation concentration range for each of a non-emergent dispersive concentration range, a weakly emergent concentration range, and a strongly emergent behavior concentration range. However, this is merely describing having pre-defined ranges along the established curve. In other words, labeling parts of the established curve. Fan teaches the feature of assigning different pollutant concentration values to ranges, to be used at least when displaying the pollutant concentration value (see fig. 2 and col. 4, l. 63 to col. 5, l. 15). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly assign at least three ranges along the emergent behavior (standard) curve for the PFAS being characterized. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to map or display the data clearly showing approximate concentrations, or even just to broadly summarize the severity of the estimated concentration a particular PFAS formulation.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Coffin, Singh, and Fan teaches the method of claim 1. In this combination, as explained previously, a static surface tension is measured for each of the one or more samples, and by comparing the static surface tension to the emergent behavior curve a concentration of the PFAS formulation in each of the one or more samples is determined (using the dilution series and standard curves to estimate the concentration of a given PFAS, given the relationship between surface tension and concentration taught by Coffin in [0084]-[0086]).
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Coffin, Singh, and Fan teaches the method of claim 1. Coffin further teaches the one or more samples being obtained from an environmental site that is contaminated by the PFAS formulation (the samples collected in Coffin as per [0084]-[0086] have been collected from the Kalamazoo Wastewater Reclamation Facility).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffin, Singh, and Fan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnsie R. Lang et al., National Estimate of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Release to U.S. Municipal Landfill Leachate, Environmental Science & Technology 2017 51 (4), 2197-2205 (hereinafter referred to as Lang).
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Coffin, Singh, and Fan teaches the method of claim 3. However, this combination does not expressly teach using the emergent behavior curve to correlate the determined concentration of the PFAS formulation in each of the one or more samples with a probability that the PFAS formulation for each environmental sample will shed additional PFAS at the environmental site.
Lang teaches that there is a correlation between PFAS concentration and the age of the source of the PFAS, with younger sources shedding larger concentrations of PFAS (see table 3, which demonstrates this in landfill leachate for three climates). It accordingly would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emergent behavior (standard) curve to similarly roughly correlate the determined concentration of the PFAS formulation in each of the one or more samples with a probability that the PFAS formulation for each environmental sample will shed additional PFAS at the environmental site (higher concentrations may indicate an increased chance of long-term continual PFAS release into the environment). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do in order to decide whether to select this PFAS as a priority for remediation.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0307961 to Brady, Coffin, Singh, and Fan.
With regards to claim 5, Brady teaches a method of characterizing an environmental site contaminated with a PFAS formulation, comprising:
obtaining one or more samples at a plurality of locations within the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation (a plurality of samples are acquired according to [0069], [0074], at the locations for example shown in fig. 11);
estimating, based on surface tension, an environmental PFAS formulation concentration at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained (surface tension measurements are used to estimate the concentration of PFAS at the locations shown in fig. 11; see at least [0074]).
Brady does not teach:
preparing a dilution series of the PFAS formulation;
measuring a static surface tension for each member of the dilution series of the PFAS formulation;
plotting the measured static surface tension for each member of the dilution series versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create an emergent behavior curve;
using the emergent behavior curve, assigning a PFAS formulation concentration range for each of a non-emergent dispersive concentration range, a weakly emergent concentration range, and a strongly emergent behavior concentration range;
measuring a static surface tension for each of the one or more obtained samples; and
using the emergent behavior curve to estimate an environmental PFAS formulation concentration at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained.
Coffin teaches a method comprising:
obtaining one or more samples including a PFAS formulation (at least 20 samples as per [0084]-[0086], select PFAS are also identified in fig. 22 and 23);
measuring a static surface tension for each of the one or more obtained samples (see fig. 22 and [0084]-[0086], note that the surface tension measured is understood to be static surface tension based on the disclosure of [0048]); and
plotting the measured static surface tension for each sample versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create a curve (see fig. 22 and [0084]-[0086]).
Given that Coffin teaches that surface tension can be used as a proxy for PFAS concentration ([0086]), it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the technique of Coffin in the method of characterizing an environmental site contaminated with a PFAS formulation taught by Brady, such that it comprises measuring a static surface tension for each of the one or more obtained samples. Coffin teaches that doing so would enable concentration to be estimated using a parameter (surface tension) that is cheap, easy, and quick to measure (Coffin, [0086]).
Preparing a dilution series of a standard substance, establishing a standard curve for each member of the dilution series, and then identifying a property of an unknown substance by comparison to the standard curves is a well-established analytical technique in chemistry. To give one example, Singh teaches that it has hitherto been known to use this technique to identify concentrations of PFAS-related substances. See [0137]. In view hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this technique to identify PFAS formulation properties based on some known relationship. In the instant case, Coffin teaches that there is a relationship between static surface tension and concentration, and Singh teaches that serial dilutions can be used to build standard curves to estimate concentration. Specifically, it would have been obvious to prepare a dilution series of a PFAS formulation, measure a static surface tension for each member of the dilution series of the PFAS formulation, plot the measured static surface tension for each member of the dilution series versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create an emergent behavior curve (corresponding to the standard curve in Singh), and then use the emergent behavior curve to estimate an environmental PFAS formulation concentration at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained (to give a concentration map as in fig. 11 in Brady). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to estimate concentration from the surface tension of the samples using the relationship demonstrated by Coffin.
Where this combination differs from the claimed invention is in: using the emergent behavior curve, assigning a PFAS formulation concentration range for each of a non-emergent dispersive concentration range, a weakly emergent concentration range, and a strongly emergent behavior concentration range. However, this is merely describing having pre-defined ranges along the established curve. In other words, labeling parts of the established curve. Fan teaches the feature of assigning different pollutant concentration values to ranges, to be used at least when displaying the pollutant concentration value (see fig. 2 and col. 4, l. 63 to col. 5, l. 15). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly assign at least three ranges along the emergent behavior (standard) curve for the PFAS being characterized. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to map or display the data clearly showing approximate concentrations, or even just to broadly summarize the severity of the estimated concentration a particular PFAS formulation.
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Brady, Coffin, Singh, and Fan teaches the method of claim 5. In this combination, a map of the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation may be created (as per fig. 11 of Brady) showing which of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained includes an environmental PFAS formulation concentration that is within the non-emergent dispersive concentration range (i.e., a low concentration range), includes an environmental PFAS formulation concentration that is within the weakly emergent concentration range (i.e., a medium concentration range), and includes an environmental PFAS formulation concentration that is within the strongly emergent behavior concentration range (i.e., a high concentration range) (as per the mapping technique using ranges in Fan).
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Brady, Coffin, Singh, and Fan teaches the method of claim 6. Brady further teaches the map of the environmental site may include location data in three dimensions (the samples may be taken repeated over time to demonstrate movement of a contaminant; [0070]).
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Brady, Coffin, Singh, and Fan teaches the method of claim 5. Brady further teaches that each of the plurality of environmental samples may include a water sample from the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation (the sample may be a water sample as per [0063]).
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Brady, Coffin, Singh, and Fan teaches the method of claim 5. This combination further teaches each of the plurality of environmental samples is prepared by a water extraction of a solid or semi-solid sample from the environmental site contaminated with the PFAS formulation (the sample may be a soil slurry, a gel, or a colloid as per [0063] of Brady, from which liquid would be extracted by some means to measure the surface tension thereof).
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Brady, Coffin, Singh, and Fan teaches the method of claim 5. Although this combination does not expressly teach using the emergent behavior curve to estimate a total oxidizable precursor concentration of the environmental PFAS formulation at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained, Coffin teaches polyfluorinated precursor compounds being known to transform into PFAS through various mechanisms (see [0088]-[0090]). It naturally follows that detecting a high or low concentration of a particular final perfluorinated compound could correlate to a correspondingly high or low concentration of precursor compounds. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emergent behavior (standard) curve to estimate a total oxidizable precursor concentration of the environmental PFAS formulation at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained, based on the identified PFAS concentration. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to identify potential sites from which precursor compounds could be targeted for removal.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady, Coffin, Singh, and Fan as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lang.
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Brady, Coffin, Singh, and Fan teaches the method of claim 3. However, this combination does not expressly teach using the emergent behavior curve to correlate the determined concentration at each of the plurality of locations where the one or more samples was obtained with a probability that the PFAS formulation contaminant at each of the plurality of locations will shed additional PFAS into an environment of that location.
Lang teaches that there is a correlation between PFAS concentration and the age of the source of the PFAS, with younger sources shedding larger concentrations of PFAS (see table 3, which demonstrates this in landfill leachate for three climates). It accordingly would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emergent behavior (standard) curve to similarly roughly correlate the determined concentration of the PFAS formulation in each sample with a probability that the PFAS formulation for each environmental sample will shed additional PFAS at the location the sample was taken (higher concentrations may indicate an increased chance of long-term continual PFAS release into the environment). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do in order to decide whether to select a particular location for remediation efforts.
Claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady, Coffin, Singh, Lang, and WO 2021/162914 to Brady (hereinafter referred to as Brady '914).
With regards to claim 12, Brady teaches a method for a site contaminated with a PFAS formulation, comprising:
collecting a plurality of samples collected at known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation (a plurality of samples are acquired according to [0069], [0074], at the locations for example shown in fig. 11); and
estimating, based on surface tension, a PFAS formulation concentration at each of the known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation (surface tension measurements are used to estimate the concentration of PFAS at the locations shown in fig. 11; see at least [0074]).
Brady does not teach:
preparing a dilution series of the PFAS formulation;
measuring a static surface tension for each member of the dilution series of the PFAS formulation;
plotting the measured static surface tension for each member of the dilution series versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create an emergent behavior curve;
measuring a static surface tension for each of a plurality of samples collected at known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation;
estimating, using the emergent behavior curve, a PFAS formulation concentration at each of the known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation;
determining, using the emergent behavior curve, whether the PFAS formulation at each of the known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation is likely to shed additional PFAS into an environment of that location; and
removing contaminated material from the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation at the known locations within the site where the PFAS formulation concentrations are determined to be likely to shed additional PFAS into the environment of that location.
Coffin teaches a method comprising:
obtaining one or more samples including a PFAS formulation (at least 20 samples as per [0084]-[0086], select PFAS are also identified in fig. 22 and 23);
measuring a static surface tension for each of the one or more obtained samples (see fig. 22 and [0084]-[0086], note that the surface tension measured is understood to be static surface tension based on the disclosure of [0048]); and
plotting the measured static surface tension for each sample versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create a curve (see fig. 22 and [0084]-[0086]).
Given that Coffin teaches that surface tension can be used as a proxy for PFAS concentration ([0086]), it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the technique of Coffin in the method of Brady, such that it comprises measuring a static surface tension for each of a plurality of samples collected at known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation. Coffin teaches that doing so would enable concentration to be estimated using a parameter (surface tension) that is cheap, easy, and quick to measure (Coffin, [0086]).
Preparing a dilution series of a standard substance, establishing a standard curve for each member of the dilution series, and then identifying a property of an unknown substance by comparison to the standard curves is a well-established analytical technique in chemistry. To give one example, Singh teaches that it has hitherto been known to use this technique to identify concentrations of PFAS-related substances. See [0137]. In view hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this technique to identify PFAS formulation properties based on some known relationship. In the instant case, Coffin teaches that there is a relationship between static surface tension and concentration, and Singh teaches that serial dilutions can be used to build standard curves to estimate concentration. Specifically, it would have been obvious to prepare a dilution series of a PFAS formulation, measure a static surface tension for each member of the dilution series of the PFAS formulation,
plotting the measured static surface tension for each member of the dilution series versus a logarithm of a concentration of the PFAS formulation to create an emergent behavior curve (corresponding to the standard curve in Singh), and then use the emergent behavior curve to estimate a PFAS formulation concentration at each of the known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation (to give a concentration map as in fig. 11 in Brady). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to estimate concentration from the surface tension of the samples using the relationship demonstrated by Coffin.
Lang teaches that there is a correlation between PFAS concentration and the age of the source of the PFAS, with younger sources shedding larger concentrations of PFAS (see table 3, which demonstrates this in landfill leachate for three climates). It accordingly would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emergent behavior (standard) curve to similarly roughly correlate the determined concentration of the PFAS formulation in each of the one or more samples with a probability that the PFAS formulation for each environmental sample will shed additional PFAS at the environmental site (higher concentrations may indicate an increased chance of long-term continual PFAS release into the environment), and thereby establish whether the PFAS formulation at each of the known locations within the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation is likely to shed additional PFAS into an environment of that location. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do in order to decide whether to select a particular location for remediation efforts.
Brady '914 teaches the feature of removing contaminated material from a site contaminated with a PFAS formulation (p. 6, l. 33 to p. 7, l. 4 & p. 24, ll. 3-7 ). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove contaminated material from the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation at the known locations within the site where the PFAS formulation concentrations are determined to be likely to shed additional PFAS into the environment of that location (i.e., are at a high concentration). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to remove the PFAS from the environment and alleviate further environmental impacts.
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Brady, Coffin, Singh, Lang, and Brady '914 teaches the method of claim 12. Although this combination does not expressly teach determining a total oxidizable precursor concentration for the PFAS formulation concentration at each of the known locations within the site contaminated by the PFAS formulation, Coffin teaches polyfluorinated precursor compounds being known to transform into PFAS through various mechanisms (see [0088]-[0090]). It naturally follows that detecting a high or low concentration of a particular final perfluorinated compound could correlate to a correspondingly high or low concentration of precursor compounds. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emergent behavior (standard) curve to determine a total oxidizable precursor concentration for the PFAS formulation concentration at each of the known locations within the site contaminated by the PFAS formulation, based on the identified PFAS concentration. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to identify potential sites from which precursor compounds could be targeted for removal.
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Brady, Coffin, Singh, Lang, and Brady '914 teaches the method of claim 12. Brady further teaches each of the plurality of samples being a water sample from the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation (the sample may be a water sample as per [0063]), or is prepared by a water extraction of a solid or semi-solid sample from the site contaminated with the PFAS formulation (the sample may be a soil slurry, a gel, or a colloid as per [0063] of Brady, from which liquid would be extracted by some means to measure the surface tension thereof).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady, Coffin, Singh, Lang, and Brady '914 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2019/0270041 to Lin et al. (hereinafter referred to as Lin).
With regards to claim 13, the combination of Brady, Coffin, Singh, Lang, and Brady '914 teaches the method of claim 12. This combination does not expressly teach treating the removed contaminated material to remove the PFAS formulation until a static surface tension measurement for an aqueous extract of the treated material correlates with a PFAS formulation concentration in the treated material that is within a non-emergent dispersive concentration range.
Lin teaches the feature of treating a contaminated substance until the concentration of the contaminant is below a threshold level (see [0047]-[0050]). Although Lin does not treat PFAS, this same iterative technique could be applied to any contaminant to ensure that the level of the contaminant in the treated material is at an acceptable level. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this technique to the applied combination and treat the removed contaminated material to remove the PFAS formulation until a static surface tension measurement for an aqueous extract of the treated material correlates with a PFAS formulation concentration in the treated material that is within a non-emergent dispersive concentration range (i.e., a given low concentration). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to ensure that sufficient remediation has been performed.
With regards to claim 14, the combination of Brady, Coffin, Singh, Lang, Brady '914, and Lin teaches the method of claim 13. Brady '914 further teaches the feature of transporting the treated material to a non-hazardous waste disposal site (p. 24, ll. 3-7).
With regards to claim 15, the combination of Brady, Coffin, Singh, Lang, Brady '914, and Lin teaches the method of claim 13. Brady '914 further teaches the feature of treating the removed contaminated material includes removing the PFAS formulation from the removed contaminated material using thermal volatilization via a heated gas flow (p. 6, l. 33 to p. 7, l. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights