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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application 63/464,243 (filed: 5/5/23)
under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Specification (objections)
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms RemBind and Fluorosorb (see: [0015] [0028]; 0042l 0052]; which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. These terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claims 6 and 14: use of the British term “sulphate” should be replaced with “sulfate” which is the English equivalent.
b. Claims 7 and 18 are missing a period (“.“) at the end of the claim.
c. In claims 9 and 19, the term “Biochar” in the middle of the sentence should be lower-case i.e. “biochar”.
d. In claim 10, line two in the phrase “.. substances (PFAS) from with phytoremediation…” the term “from with” is not grammatically correct. Consider amending e.g. to “from soil with”.
e. In claim 10, use of the term “increasing an uptake” is grammatically improper and also introduces a clarity issues as to what other function besides uptake is encompassed by “an uptake” is included. Please consider amending to delete the term “an” from this phrase which would address both the grammar and clarity issues.
f. In claim 15, the phrase “further adding” is improper format regarding a comprising base claim. Please consider amending to “further comprising adding”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for biosolid amended RemBind/biochar sorbent dosages of less than 0.2% in Timothy Grass shoots (spec. p. 17/24), the claim does not reasonably provide enablement for different dosages of char/non-char sorbents in Grass shoots or other plants. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, for how to make or use the claim 8 invention commensurate in scope with this claim.
Claim 8 is drawn to a method for enhancing phytoremediation in accordance with claim 1, that includes a further step of “supplementing with the sorbent that INCREASES an uptake of PFAS in the one or more plants. Thus claim 8 is broad with regard to the “plant”; the “sorbent” and the amount of sorbent for the different types of PFASes that can achieve INCREASED uptake of PFAS.
Applicant’s specification teaches that “sorbent” supplemented soil DECREASES PFAS plant root uptake. The prior art of also teaches that “sorbent” soil supplements DECREASES PFAS plant root uptake. Applicants’ own example also indicates that different dosages larger than less than 0.2% in Timothy Grass shoots DECREASES PFAS shoot uptake. See Figure 1.
Thus, the claim is only enabled for a small concentration of “sorbent” in Timothy Grass that acts contrary to what is reasonably expected to occur.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a. Claims 1-20 are rejected, since the term “enhanced”, in the phrases “enhanced phytoremediation” (claim 1), “enhanced removal” (claim 10) and “enhanced stabilization” (claim 16) is a relative term (of degree) which lacks a clear baseline or objective standard of comparison. See MPEP 2173. Please consider providing either a point of comparison or a means of determining “enhancement”. For example defining as compared to “untreated” (soil) or a control.
b. Claims 1-9 are rejected because of the claim 1 phrase “changing bioavailability” renders the metes and bounds of claim 1 (and its dependents) ambiguous e.g. does it encompass, increased, decreased or otherwise altered bioavailability. Additionally, the specification does not provide a definition that provided defined boundaries for this terminology. In response to this rejection, amending consistent with the specification (e.g. increasing/decreasing) or otherwise specifying the measurable change in bioavailability should be considered.
c. In claims 1, 10 and 16 (and dependents), the term “predetermined dose” is a “relative term” or a “term of degree” which renders this term “predetermined” unclear; and the specification fails to cure this deficiency by identifying dose units, ranges, or how this dose is “predetermined”.
d. For claims 4 and 16 (and claims dependent thereon), the phrase “limiting an uptake” (claim 4) or the phrase “limit uptake” (claim 16), is indefinite for lack of antecedent basis for “an uptake” (which encompasses “one or more”) and for claim 16 “limit uptake” fails to provide a clear antecedent for the last step reciting “decreasing the uptake of PFAS”. Please consider amending e.g. for claim 4, change “limiting an uptake” to “limiting uptake”. For claim 16, change “to limit uptake” to “to decrease uptake”.
e. In claim 16 (and claims dependent thereon), the preamble term “(PFAS) in a soil to limit uptake by plants” is grammatically objectionable; but more importantly results in “improper antecedent basis” for the subsequent use of the term “of one or more plants” and “to the one or more plants”. Please consider amending the preamble to change “(PFAS) in a soil to limit uptake by plants” to “(PFAS) in a soil to limit uptake of PFAS by one or more plants” will overcome the “objection” and “rejection”.
Claim Interpretation: Claims 10-15:
Claims 10-15 are as follows:
A method for enhanced removal of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from with phytoremediation by plants, comprising:
planting seeds in PFAS-containing soil, the seeds germinating into one or more plants;
adding a mobilizing reagent, at a predetermined dose, to amend the soil around
a root system of the one or more plants; and
increasing an uptake of (PFAS) to the one or more plants.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising planting seeds harvested from
a plant exposed to PFAS into the amended soil adjacent to the one or more plants.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein planting seeds is planting soybean seeds.
13. The method of claim 10, wherein the mobilizing reagent is a surfactant.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the surfactant is sodium dodecyl sulphate.
15. The method of claim 10, further adding a stabilizing reagent to the PFAS-containing soil.
---CLAIM INTERPRETATION: claims 10-11 can be broadly interpreted as comprising “crop (plant) rotation” (at least two generations) where the plants of claim 10 encompasses soybean, non-soybean (e.g. grass) or combinations thereof that takes up PFAS (with added “mobilization” supplement).
For example:
Claim 10:
PFA soil:
a “mobilizing reagent”:
one or more plant seeds (can be the same or different E.g. grass, carrot and/or soybean)
Claim 11: add PFA plant seed (e.g. grass, soybean or carrot ….) (claim10)
---Claim 12: add PFA soybean seed.
Claim 13: “mobilizing agent” is a surfactant (claim 10)
Claim 14: “mobilizing agent” is SDS (claim 10).
Claim 15: add a “stabilizing agent” (claim 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bolan et al. “Remediation of poly- and pefluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contaminated soils-To mobilize or to immobilize or to degrade?; J. Hazard Mater. 2021 Jan. 05: 401: 123892.
Instant claim 1:
A method for enhanced phytoremediation by changing bioavailability of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to plants in amended soil, comprising: adding a mobilizing reagent, at a predetermined dose, to amend the soil around a root system of one or more plants; supplementing the amended soil with a stabilizing reagent at a predetermined dose; and changing the bioavailability of (PFAS) to the one or more plants.
Bolan (2021) (as titled) teaches the remediation of human-generated (biosolid/biowaste) PFAS contaminated soils by: a. mobilize (e.g. mobilizing amendments: e.g. surfactants: phytoremediation)
b. immobilize (e.g. immobilizing amendments: e.g. activated carbons or c. degrade. See Abstract.
Accordingly, Bolan teaches a method of “phytoremediation” by affecting PFAS “bioavailability” to plant roots by
-- utilizing “mobilizing amendments” (increase PFAS uptake i.e. phytoremediation) and
--utilizing “immobilizing” amendments to decrease PFAS root uptake (anticipating claim 4).
The amounts of mobilizing/immobilizing agents would be “predetermined” to effectuate plant root exposure to these agents. Thus, instant claim 1 is anticipated.
Bolan further teaches that the mobilizing amendments enhance the mobility and bioavailability of PFAS be a surfactant (see abstract) anticipating, particularly anionic surfactants, including dodecyl-benzene sulfonate (SDBS) anticipating instant claim 5. See e.g. Abstract/Summary Conclusion & p. 12.
Bolan in Parts 4.2 and 5.3 (and the abstract) provides background studies regarding immobilization and stabilization of PFAs compounds in soil using “sorbents’ (as instant claim 7) including “powdered or granulated AC (GAC); RembindTM; kaolinite, hematite; clay minerals; to stabilize (i.e. decrease) plant root uptake of PFAs (including PFO’s in plants. Additionally, the references would have o utilize an amount of the sorbent e.g. a “predetermined dose”) to “amend PFA-containing soil around the root system of “one or more plants”. Thus, anticipating instant claim 9.
Claim(s) 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bolan et al. “Remediation of poly- and pefluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contaminated soils-To mobilize or to immobilize or to degrade?” J. Hazard Mater. 2021 Jan. 05: 401: 123892.
Instant Claims 16, 18 and 19 are as follows:
16. A method for enhanced stabilization of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in a soil to limit uptake by plants, comprising: adding a stabilizing reagent, at a predetermined dose, to amend PFAS- containing soil around a root system of one or more plants; and decreasing the uptake of PFAS to the one or more plants.
18. … the stabilizing reagent is a sorbent which is selected from Biochar, granular activated carbon (GAC), and claim minerals (instant claim 19).
Bolan in Parts 4.2 and 5.3 Case provide background studies regarding immobilization and stabilization of PFAs compounds in soil using “sorbents’ (sorption) including “powdered or granulated AC (GAC); RembindTM; kaolinite, hematite; clay minerals; to stabilize (i.e. decrease) plant root uptake of PFAs (including PFO’s in plants. Additionally, the references would have to utilize an amount of the sorbent (e.g. a “predetermined dose”) to “amend PFA-containing soil around the root system of “one or more plants”. Thus, anticipating instant claims 16, 18 and 19.
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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolan (2021) and Zhao et al. “Biotransformation and responses of antioxidant enzymes in hydroponically cultured soybean and pumpkin exposed to perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA): Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, Vol. 161, 15 Oct. 2018, pages 559-675.
Instant claims 2 and 3 are the method of claim 1, that further comprises planting soybean seeds harvested from a plant exposed to PFAS into the amended soil adjacent to the one or more plants and claim 3 is the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more plants are soybean plants.
As discussed in the anticipation rejection over the Bolan reference discussed above, (incorporated by reference), Bolan teaches the remediation of human-generated (biosolid/biowaste) PFAS contaminated soils by using:
mobilizing amendments: e.g. surfactants: phytoremediation) and/or
immobilizing amendments: e.g. activated carbons or c. degrade. See Abstract.
Accordingly, Bolan teaches a method of “phytoremediation” by affecting PFAS “bioavailability” to plant roots by
-- utilizing “mobilizing amendments” (increase PFAS uptake i.e. phytoremediation) and
--utilizing “immobilizing” amendments to decrease PFAS root uptake (anticipating claim 4).
Bolan differs from claims 2 and 3 by failing to plant PFAS exposed seed (claim 2), particularly soybean” (claim 3) adjacent to plants exposed to soil amendments that have “stabilized” and “mobilized” toward PFAS i.e. the soil has undergone “remediation” toward PFAS.
Zhao teaches that both soybean and carrots (both commercially important) when exposed to PFAB (e.g. perfluoroctane sulfonamide or FOSA), labelled as “persistent organic pollutants (AKA: forever chemicals) were readily taken up by the roots and translocated to shoots, and metabolized to PFHxS and PFBS byproducts. Zhao further teaches that “bioaccumulation and metabolic transformation of PFAA precursors in plants are important behaviors in the ecosystems due to their adverse effects on the environment and human health. See e.g. Abstract, and Introduction.
Accordingly, planting (e.g. seeds) of soybeans (or carrots) adjacent to plants that have been exposed to stabilizing/mobilizing supplements as taught by Bolan that achieve soil remediation toward PFABs (e.g. detoxifies the soil) would be beneficial toward achieving safer soybeans (and future seeds) for human consumption.
Note also to the extent that the prior art parameters and/or amounts overlap prima facie obviousness occurs. Additionally, the selection of routine design choices, or the “optimization of “result effective” variables is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See e.g. MPEP 2144; 2144.04 and In re Aller.
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to select soybean (or carrots) as seeds to be planted next to plants whose soil has been remediated of PFABs that will serve to reduced PFAB uptake by the soybean plant and thus result in safer human consumption of the resulting soybean/carrots and seeds therefrom thus rendering obvious instant claims 2 and 3.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolan (2021) and Ganbat et al. “Investigation of the effect of surfactant on the electrokinetic treatment of PFOA contaminated soil”, Env. Tech. Innov. 28 (2022) 102938.
As discussed above in the 102 rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 9 (incorporated by reference), Bolan teaches PFAS soil remediation by utilizing mobilizing and/or stabilizing soil supplementation to modify plant PFAS bioavailability.
Bolan differs from claim 6 by failing to specifically teach sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) as the mobilizing surfactant reagent.
However, Bolan does teach the use of “anionic” mobilizing surfactants including, including dodecyl-benzene sulfonate (SDBS)
Sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) is a conventionally available anionic surfactant that is analogous in structure and functionally equivalent to SDBS.
Accordingly, in light of the Boan teaching, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a conventionally utilized and functionally equivalent anionic surfactant SDS in the Bolan reference soil remediation method with a reasonable expectation of achieving functional equivalency.
Note also to the extent that the prior art parameters and/or amounts overlap prima facie obviousness occurs. Additionally, the selection of routine design choices, or the “optimization of “result effective” variables is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See e.g. MPEP 2144; 2144.04 and In re Aller.
Additionally, Ganbat teaches that the anionic surfactant SDS enhanced PFOA removal along with electrokinetic PFOA/Kaolinte mixture in soil. Thus, Ganbat provides an explicit motivation to utilize SDS in the Bolan reference method rendering SDS selection prima facie obvious for use in the Bolan soil remediation reference teaching.
Claims 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Bolan and Globelius et al, Environ. Sci. Technol 51, 12602–12610 (2017) further in view of
a. Garau et al. “Combining grass and legume species with compost for assisted phytostabilization of contaminated soils”: Environmental Technology & Innovation 22 101387 (2021),
b. Zhao et al. “Biotransformation and responses of antioxidant enzymes in hydroponically cultured soybean and pumpkin exposed to pefluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA): Exotoxicology and Environnmental Safety 161: 669-675 (Oct: 2018)
taken separately, or in combination.
Bolan in Parts 4.2 and 5.3 Case provide background studies regarding immobilization and stabilization of PFAs compounds in soil using “sorbents’ (sorption) including “powdered or granulated AC (GAC); RembindTM; kaolinite, hematite; clay minerals; to stabilize (i.e. decrease) plant root uptake of PFAs (including PFO’s in plants. Additionally, Bolan further teaches PFAS phytoremediation with “supplements” (mobile: surfactant and stabilize (carbon).
At Bolan, p. 20: 5.2 Case Study 2: Mobilization and phytoremediation: (Globelius et al. 2017):
Gobelius L, Lewis J, Ahrens L, 2017. Plant uptake of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances at a contaminated fire training facility to evaluate the phytoremediation potential of various tree plant species. See Globelius et al, Environ. Sci. Technol 51, 12602–12610. 10.1021/acs.est.7b02926. [PubMed: 28972370].
Globelius assessed PFAS phytoremediation potential of a range of plant species under field conditions for the extent of contamination of soil and groundwater and the uptake of 26 PFASs by plants. Three scenarios to estimate the PFAS phytoextraction efficiency and remediation period.
--The first scenario comprised a shelter wood of mixed silver birch (∼66 %) and Norway spruce (∼33 %) stands. Considering this system with frequent harvest of shoot and birch sap, and an understory of ground elder, they estimated that it was possible to remove annually 1.4 g of Σ26PFASs/ha.
---The second scenario was the regular coppicing of birches, in which the tree trunks were left in the field but the twigs and leaves were harvested in every 3 – 5 years of rotation. Annually 5 tonnes/ha of biomass composed of twigs and leaves could be generated, leading to annually 0.65 g of extractable Σ26PFASs for birches.
---The third scenario was the preservation of a meadow composed of plant species with high PFAS uptake potential. Accordingly, the long beech fern (Phegopteris connectilis) and ground elder (Aegopodium podagraria) are practical choices, extracting annually 0.55 g/ha of Σ26PFASs if mowed regularly.
Additionally, Bolan at pages 21-22: 5.3 Case Study 3: Immobilization describes several different studies demonstrating the benefits of stabilization/solidification supplements including Rembind, activated carbons. For examples in one study ((Sörengård et al., 2019a) in Sweden stabilization of PFAS in a soil matrix using various binders, such as combination of Portland cement, fly ash, and ground granulated blast-furnace base slag (9:1 soil to binder ratio), as well as commercially available stabilizers such as pulverised activated carbon, Rembind®, powdered zeolite, chitosan, hydrotalcite, bentonite, and calcium chloride were determined to be beneficial for phytoremediation.
Note also to the extent that the prior art parameters and/or amounts overlap prima facie obviousness occurs. Additionally, the selection of routine design choices, or the “optimization of “result effective” variables is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See e.g. MPEP 2144; 2144.04 and In re Aller.
Accordingly, the combined teaching of the Bolan and Globelius is that PFA removal from the soil by plant phytoremediation can be enhanced by utilizing both “mobilizing” (e.g. anionic surfactants) and “stabilizing” (e.g. carbon containing compounds, char etc.) supplements with a “crop rotation” protocol
Enhancing the removal of PFABs by subsequent replantings (or reseeding) of the same or different plant varieties that are know to successfully uptake PFABs.
Thus, the tandem Bolan/Globelus teaching would render obvious the instant claim 10 method drawn to utilizing PFAS plants (crops/grasses/trees) that are known to phytoremediate PFAS compounds from soil along with enhanced uptake (mobilize supplements) and the further use of stabilizing supplements AND subsequent “crop rotation” (adjacent seeding) of the same or different plants for optimal phytoremediation thus rendering obvious instant claims 10, 11, 13 and 15.
The combined Bolan/Globelus teaching differs from instant claim 12 by not disclose the use of legume plants (e.g. soybean) in their phytoremediation method.
The Garau and/or Zhao references provide express motivation to utilize legumes (e.g. soybeans) in a phytoremediation protocol due to efficient removal of PFAS compounds.
a. Garau (abstract) teaches the benefits of “assisted phytoremediation” i.e. the combination of amendment and plant cultivation to remove potentially toxic elements (PTE) from soil, or to reduce their mobility and toxicity, as an effective gentle remediation option for the recovery of PTE contaminated soils. Garau evaluated the suitability of different grass and legume species, such as Arundo donax L., Hordeum vulgare L. and Lupinus albus L., in assisted phytoremediation programs of PTE-contaminated soils in combination with a municipal solid waste compost (MSWC) used at 2 and 4% rates. The soil was heavily contaminated by different PTE, i.e. Pb (15,383 mg kg−1), Zn (4,076 mg kg−1), Sb (109 mg kg−1), Cd (67 mg kg−1) and As (49 mg kg−1). The selected plant species were able to grow in the contaminated soil, and their biomass production was significantly influenced by the compost either positively (e.g. A. donax) or negatively (e.g. H. vulgare roots). … The results indicated that A. donax, and in selected cases L. albus, can be used in combination with MSWC for the phytostabilization
of PTE-contaminated soils.
b. Zhao teaches that both soybean and carrots (both commercially important) when exposed to PFAB (e.g. perfluoroctane sulfonamide or FOSA), labelled as “persistent organic pollutants (AKA: forever chemicals) were readily taken up by the roots and translocated to shoots, and metabolized to PFHxS and PFBS byproducts. Zhao further teaches that “bioaccumulation and metabolic transformation of PFAA precursors in plants are important behaviors in the ecosystems due to their adverse effects on the environment and human health. See e.g. Abstract, and Introduction.
Accordingly, the Garau and Zhao references provide motivation to select legumes (e.g. soybean) for their phytoremediation capabilities regarding PFAS containing soils. Additionally, the selection of other plants (e.g. grasses) and crops (carrots) to be adjacently combined (e.g. seeds/plants) with (e.g. crop rotation) to further enhance biomass and the ability to removed different PFAS compounds to effect optimum remediation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Note also to the extent that the prior art parameters and/or amounts overlap prima facie obviousness occurs. Additionally, the selection of routine design choices, or the “optimization of “result effective” variables is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See e.g. MPEP 2144; 2144.04 and In re Aller.
Thus, selecting legumes (soybean) for use alone (or with different PFAB phytoremediation inducing plants) in the Bolan and Globelius combined reference teaching of crop rotation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolan and Globelius in view of Garau (2021) and Zhao, as applied to claims 10-13 and 15 above, and further in view of.
As discussed above in the 103 rejection of claims 10-13 and 15 (incorporated by reference in its entirety) the combined Bolan and Globelius references teach utilizing various plant rotations of PFAS phytoremediation capable plants with enhanced uptake and stabilization by use of conventionally available supplements with optimized PBAS remediation using crop rotation of the same or different plants.
The combined Bolan and Globelius reference teaching differs from instant claim 14, by failing to explicitly teach the selection of SDS as the preferred anionic stabilizing supplement agent.
However, Bolan does teach the use of “anionic” mobilizing surfactants including
anionic surfactants, most particularly dodecyl-benzene sulfonate (SDBS)
Sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) is a conventionally available anionic surfactant that is analogous in structure and is functionally equivalent to SDBS.
Note also to the extent that the prior art parameters and/or amounts overlap prima facie obviousness occurs. Additionally, the selection of routine design choices, or the “optimization of “result effective” variables is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See e.g. MPEP 2144; 2144.04 and In re Aller.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a conventionally utilized and functionally equivalent anionic surfactant SDS in the Bolan (and Globelius) reference soil remediation methods with a reasonable expectation of achieving functional equivalency (e.g. increased PFAS root uptake).
Additionally, in this respect, Ganbat teaches that the anionic surfactant SDS enhanced PFOA removal along with electrokinetic PFOA/Kaolinte mixture that mimic soil. Thus, Ganbat provides an explicit motivation to utilize SDS in the Bolan/Globelius reference method rendering SDS selection prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolan et al. J.. Hazard Mater. 2021 Jan. 05: 401: 123892 and Zhao et al. “Biotransformation and responses of antioxidant enzymes in hydroponically cultured soybean and pumpkin exposed to pefluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA)”; Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, Vol. 161, 15 Oct. 2018, pages 559-675.
Instant claims 17 and 20 are as follows:
The method of claim 16, further comprising planting soybean seeds harvested from a plant exposed to PFAS into the amended soil adjacent to the one or more plants. Claim 20 is the method of claim 16, wherein the one or more plants are soybean plants.
In the previous 102 rejection of claims 16, 18 and 19 in which the Bolan reference teaches enhanced stabilization of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in a soil to limit uptake by plants, by adding stabilizing reagent (e.g. sorbents to reduce uptake of PBAs.
The Bolan reference differs from claims 17 and 20 by failing to selected “soybean” as one of the plants to be stabilized to PFAS uptake (instant claim 20) or to plant soybean seeds exposed to PFAS adjacent to plants “stabilized” by the addition of sorbents to the soil (instant claim 17) .
The Zhao reference teaches that both soybean and carrots (both commercially important) when exposed to PFAB (e.g. perfluroctane sulfonamied or FOSA), labelled as “persistent organic pollutants (AKA: forever chemicals) were readily uptaked by the roots and troslocated to shoots, and metabolized to PFHxS and PFBS byproducts. The reference teaches that “bioaccumulation and metabolic transformation of PFAA precursors in plants are important behaviours in the ecosystmens due to their adverse effects on the environment and human health. See e.g. Abstract; and Introduction.
Accordingly, stabilizing (or decreasing) root uptake of commercially important food crops (e.g. soybeans/carrots) would be beneficial to prevent human consumption of these food commodities.
Note also to the extent that the prior art parameters and/or amounts overlap prima facie obviousness occurs. Additionally, the selection of routine design choices, or the “optimization of “result effective” variables is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See e.g. MPEP 2144; 2144.04 and In re Aller.
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to select soybeans (or carrots) as plants to be stabilized by sorbents in the Zhao reference teaching or to be planted (e.g. seeds) next to plants whose soil has been modified to reduced uptake (e.g by the addition of sorbents) in order to result in safer human consumption of the resulting soybean/carrots thus rendering obvious instant claims 17and 20.
Conclusion
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tang et al., “Field crops (Ipomoea aquatica Forsk. and Brassica chinensis L.) for phytoremediation of cadmium and nitrate co-contaminated soils via rotation with Sedum alfredii Hance”, Env. Sci. Polt. Res. 24:19293-19305 (2017):
Abstract Phytoremediation coupled with crop rotation (PCC) is a feasible strategy for remediation of contaminated soil without interrupting crop production. The objective of this study was to develop a PCC technology system for greenhouse fields co-contaminated with Cd and nitrate using hyperaccumulator
Sedum alfredii. In this system, endophytic bacterium M002 inoculation, CO2 fertilization, and fermentation residue were continuously applied to improve the growth of S. alfredii, and low accumulator Ipomoea aquatica and low-accumulator Brassica chinensis were rotated under reasonable water management. These comprehensive management practices were shown to increase
S. alfredii biomass and Cd uptake and reduce Cd and nitrate concentration in I. aquatica and B. chinensis. This crop rotating system could remove 56.5% total Cd, 62.3% DTPA extractable Cd, and 65.4%nitrate, respectively, from the co-contaminated soil in 2 years of phytoremediation, and is an effective way of remediating moderately co-contaminated soil by Cd and nitrate.
Yang et al., “Assessment of the potential for phytoremediation of cadmium polluted soils by various crop rotation patterns based on the annual input and output fluxes” J. Hazardous Materials” 423:127183 (2022):
Abstract Phytoremediation potential of two oil crop rotations (oilseed sunflower–rape (O+Ra) and peanut–oilseed rape (P+Ra)) was compared with three conventional cropping patterns (rice–rape (R+Ra), rice–rice (R+R), single cropped rice (SR)) in experimental plots with cadmium (Cd)-contaminated soil. A new approach was used to evaluate phytoremediation potential based on the balance between annual input and output fluxes of Cd in farmland soil. In O+Ra and P+Ra rotations, 77.24 and 62.09 g/ha Cd were removed, respectively, whereas in R+Ra, R+R, and SR patterns, 41.79, 46.46, and 23.85 g/ha Cd were removed, respectively. The balance between inputs and outputs of Cd was 40.72 and 25.76 g/ha under O+Ra and P+Ra rotations, respectively. Available Cd content in topsoil was reduced by 5.58% and 3.91% under O+Ra and P+Ra rotations, respectively. Based on the balance between Cd inputs and outputs, phytoremediation efficiencies of O+Ra (1.23%) and P+Ra (0.78%) rotations were higher than those of R+R (0.29%), R+Ra (0.13%), and SR ( 0.38%) systems. Because crop removal is the main Cd output pathway, selection of a suitable crop is particularly important in remediation of Cd-contaminated farmland.
Zhang et al. “Distribution of eight perfluoralkyl acids in plant-soil-water systems and their effect on the soil microbial community” Science of the Total Environment 697:1341-1346 (2019),
Abstract Phytoremediation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) appears to be a green remediation technique. To understand distribution of PFAS in plant-soil-water systems, eight perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) at three different concentrations were spiked to Juncus effusus grown in a greenhouse for 21 days. Results from this study demonstrated that mass-based plant uptake of PFAAs correlated positively with concentrations and time. On the basis of removal percentages, the higher the initial PFAA concentrations, the less removal by plant was observed. With the low level of PFAA spike, J. effusus roots and shoots accumulated 30–40% of PFAAs (C4 to C8) except PFOS with a lower uptake of approximately 20%. Together with soil sorption, N82.8% of PFAAs were removed from the aqueous solution in 21 days. Uptake of PFAAs also depended on their carbon chain length and plant compartments (roots or shoots). This dependence resulted in different bioaccumulation factors and translocation factors for different PFAAs. Besides physical and chemical distribution, PFAAs, especially those added at the high level led to significant change of soil bacterial communities in terms of composition and structure. Potential impact to the community's functions warrants further investigations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENNETT CELSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Zachariah Lucas can be reached at (571) 272-0905. 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.
/BENNETT M CELSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights