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 .
Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, in part c) “hydrohide” is non-idiomatic with unclear meaning (replacement of the term with “hydroxide” is suggested), with the “metal…hydrohide (or “hydroxide”) also lacking in antecedent basis, since part a) of the claim only recites “a metal oxide” without reciting “metal hydrohide or hydroxide”.
In each of claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11-13 and 22-24, “the metal oxide” lacks antecedent basis, being inconsistent with part c) of claim 1 which recites “metal oxide” being in the alternative.
In claim 12, “the metal oxide produced by thermal decomposition” lacks antecedent basis, since no such step of obtaining a metal oxide is recited in claim 1.
In each of claims 14-17, “or combinations thereof” is indefinite and confusing, since it is unclear whether the claims encompass plural combinations of two or more of “CaO, MgO, Ca(OH)2 and Mg(OH)2.
In claim 21, “gaseous or vapor waster” is non-idiomatic with unclear meaning.
In claim 23, scope and meaning of “commercially available CaO” is unclear (does such CaO have any different properties from CaO which is not commercially accessible or available?, what criteria constitutes “available?).
In claim 24, scope and meaning of “commercially available CaO” is unclear (does such CaO have any different properties from CaO which is not commercially accessible or available?, what criteria constitutes “available?).
In claim 25, it is unclear whether part (a), (iii) is referring to separate outlet(s) for removal of solid product and steam, respectively; and,
the scope and meaning of “enhanced chemical reactivity” is unclear, since there is no point of reference to metal oxide having less chemical reactivity.
In each of claims 38-41, “or combinations thereof” is indefinite and confusing, since it is unclear whether the claims encompass plural combinations of two or more of “CaO, MgO, Ca(OH)2 and Mg(OH)2.
In claim 44, scope and meaning of “commercially available CaO” is unclear (does such CaO have any different properties from CaO which is not commercially accessible or available?, what criteria constitutes “available?).
In claim 45, scope and meaning of “commercially available CaO” is unclear (does such CaO have any different properties from CaO which is not commercially accessible or available?, what criteria constitutes “available?).
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, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, 41, 42 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillan PGPUBS Document US 2022/0227644 (Santillan) in view of White patent 2,643,226.
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Santillan discloses a method for the destruction of PFAS compounds (Abstract, [0005] regarding eliminating and breaking down PFAS) , the method comprising:
(a) introducing a metal oxide into a vessel [0048 re CaO source 106 such as a cartridge containing pellets inserted into furnace vessel 104], wherein the vessel is heated to a temperature in a range of approximately 300°C to approximately 700°C [0054 re furnace vessel 104 being heated to a temperature of between 200 to 1500 degrees C, thus encompassing the entirety of the claimed temperature range];
(b) introducing a contaminated stream to the vessel, wherein the contaminated stream comprises one or more PFAS compound (figure 1 and [0044 and 0046-0048 re a contaminated stream containing the PFAS being routed into input stream 102 of a furnace vessel 104]); and,
(c) reacting the contaminated stream with the metal oxide or hydrohide (i.e. “hydroxide”) [0048 re “reactive surface area”] and [0053-0054 re reaction of the PFAS so as to be converted into CaF2 (i.e. “calcium fluoride)]); and suggests
(d) resultant to the reacting, producing a solid non-toxic product ([0082 re the CaF2 comprised as solids which are treated, dried and weighed] and [0005-0006 describing the produced calcium fluoride being a significantly less toxic product, than the starting PFAS contaminant material]) .
Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom, differ from Santillan by explicitly requiring the produced calcium fluoride being “non-toxic”. White teaches that calcium fluoride can be introduced as a solid into a water treating plant, so as to fluoridate the water, the calcium fluoride being described as a non-toxic substance when handled in such manner (all at column 2, line 31-column 3, line 8) for dental health purposes (column 1, lines 1-15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment and decontamination industry, to have processed and utilized the produced calcium fluoride, by introducing it as a solid into a water treating plant, so as to fluoridate the water, the calcium fluoride being a non-toxic substance when handled in such manner, as taught by White, in order to produce an entirely safe and commercially valuable consumer product.
For claim 17, Santillan further discloses, wherein the vessel comprises a kiln with CaO, MgO, Ca(OH)2, Mg(OH)2, or combinations thereof [0048 and 0071-0072 re a concentrated stream routed to furnace 204 which includes features of furnace vessel 104 and includes calcium oxide from a calcium oxide source 206 and see “furnace 204 may be a … kiln”].
For claim 18, Santillan further discloses, wherein the non-toxic product comprises a relatively less toxic calcium fluoride (CaF2) ([0053-0054 re reaction of the PFAS so as to be converted into CaF2 (i.e. “calcium fluoride)], [0082 re the CaF2 comprised as solids which are treated, dried and weighed] and [0005-0006 describing the produced calcium fluoride being a significantly less toxic product, than the starting PFAS contaminant material]) .
White teaches that calcium fluoride can be introduced as a solid into a water treating plant, so as to fluoridate the water, the calcium fluoride being described as a non-toxic substance when handled in such manner (all at column 2, line 31-column 3, line 8) for dental health purposes (column 1, lines 1-15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment and decontamination industry, to have processed and utilized the produced calcium fluoride, by introducing it as a solid into a water treating plant, so as to fluoridate the water, the calcium fluoride being a non-toxic substance when handled in such manner, as taught by White, in order to produce an entirely safe and commercially valuable consumer product.
For claim 20, Santillan further discloses wherein the contaminated stream comprises PFAS-contaminated solid waste [0003 re PFAS constituting residual solid waste leached from consumer products including fabrics, carpeting, cleaning products, paints, cookware and fire-fighting foams] and [0044-0048 re such PFAS being present as contaminants in PFAS-contaminated streams being treated] .
For claim 21, Santillan further discloses wherein the contaminated stream comprises PFAS-contaminated gaseous or vapor waster [0003 re PFAS constituting residual solid waste leached from fire-fighting foams, thus containing gaseous air bubbles] and [0044-0048 re such PFAS being present as contaminants in PFAS-contaminated streams being treated] .
For claim 22, Santillan further discloses the method further comprising, prior to introducing the metal oxide and the contaminated stream into the vessel, pre-mixing the metal oxide with the contaminated stream [0049 re the reaction furnaces optionally being in series, hence a given downstream furnace reactor vessel 104 receiving a stream which has already had calcium oxide type metal oxide dispersed into, or pre-mixed with the contaminated stream].
For claim 23, Santillan further discloses wherein the metal oxide comprises commercially available CaO [0041, 0044 and 0048 re CaO source or cartridge, thus, inherently purchased from a commercial source].
For independent claim 25, Santillan discloses a system for the destruction of PFAS compounds (Abstract, [0005, 0006 and 0037 re systems for eliminating and breaking down PFAS]), the system comprising:
(a) a vessel [0048 re CaO source 106 such as a cartridge containing pellets inserted into furnace vessel 104] comprising:
(i) an inlet to receive a contaminated stream, wherein the contaminated stream comprises a PFAS compound [0046, 0048 re input stream 102 fed into furnace 104],
(ii) an interior to house the contaminated stream (figure 1 and [0048] re interior of furnace 104 handling the input stream which is fed into the furnace and also including a CaO cartridge), and
(iii) one or more outlets configured to allow solid product removal and steam removal from the vessel [0052 re outlet stream 108 to remove products of the PFAS-CaO reaction];
(b) a metal oxide [0048 re a CaO cartridge 106 which may include CaO pellets mixed with sand], wherein
(i) the metal oxide is housed within the interior of the vessel (figure 1 illustrating CaO cartridge housed within the vessel interior),
(ii) the metal oxide has enhanced chemical reactivity with the PFAS compound in the contaminated stream (Santillan further discloses, wherein the non-toxic product comprises a relatively less toxic calcium fluoride (CaF2) ([0053-0054 re reaction of the PFAS so as to be converted into CaF2 (i.e. “calcium fluoride)], [0082 re the CaF2 comprised as solids which are treated, dried and weighed] and [0005-0006 describing the produced calcium fluoride being a significantly less toxic product, than the starting PFAS contaminant material]), and
(iii) the metal oxide reacts with the PFAS compound at temperatures ranging from approximately 300°C to 700°C to produce a solid, relatively less toxic product ([0053-0054 re reaction of the PFAS so as to be converted into CaF2 (i.e. “calcium fluoride], [0082 re the CaF2 comprised as solids which are treated, dried and weighed] and [0005-0006 describing the produced calcium fluoride being a significantly less toxic product, than the starting PFAS contaminant material]); and
(c) a heat source configured to heat the vessel to a reaction temperature in a range of approximately 300°C to 700°C (see the evaporation coil at the bottom of the vessel in figure 1 and [0054 re the furnace being heated from some heat source up to a temperature of between 200 and 1500 degrees C, thus encompassing the claimed temperature range]).
Claim 25, and claims dependent therefrom differ from Santillan by requiring the one or more outlets of the system to be explicitly operable for allowing removal of producing calcium fluoride or another product which is “non-toxic” .
White teaches that calcium fluoride can be introduced as a solid into a water treating plant, so as to fluoridate the water, the calcium fluoride being described as a non-toxic substance when handled in such manner (all taught at column 2, line 31-column 3, line 8), the calcium fluoride being taught as being a non-toxic product for dental health purposes (column 1, lines 1-15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment decontamination industry, to have augmented the Santillan system to be operable for processing calcium fluoride product, for removal from the one or more outlets, which is non-toxic, by processing the product so that it may be utilized to produce calcium fluoride, by introducing it as a solid into a water treating plant, so as to fluoridate the water, the calcium fluoride being a non-toxic substance when handled in such manner, as taught by White, in order to produce an entirely safe and commercially valuable consumer product.
For claim 41, Santillan further discloses wherein the vessel comprises a kiln with CaO, MgO, Ca(OH)2, Mg(OH)2, or combinations thereof [0048 and 0071-0072 re a concentrated stream routed to furnace 204 which includes features of furnace vessel 104 and includes calcium oxide from a calcium oxide source 206 and see “furnace 204 may be a … kiln”].
For claim 42, Santillan further discloses wherein the non-toxic product comprises a relatively less toxic calcium fluoride (CaF2), (([0053-0054 re reaction of the PFAS so as to be converted into CaF2 (i.e. “calcium fluoride], [0082 re the CaF2 comprised as solids which are treated, dried and weighed] and [0005-0006 describing the produced calcium fluoride being a significantly less toxic product, than the starting PFAS contaminant material]).
Claim 42 differs from Santillan by requiring the system to be explicitly operable for allowing removal of producing a calcium fluoride or another product which is “non-toxic” .
White teaches that calcium fluoride can be introduced as a solid into a water treating plant, so as to fluoridate the water, the calcium fluoride being described as a non-toxic substance when handled in such manner (all taught at column 2, line 31-column 3, line 8), the calcium fluoride being taught as being a non-toxic product for dental health purposes (column 1, lines 1-15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment decontamination industry, to have augmented the Santillan system to be operable for processing calcium fluoride product, which is non-toxic, as taught by White, by processing the product so that it may be utilized to fluoridate potable water, the calcium fluoride being a non-toxic substance when handled in such manner, thus producing an entirely safe and commercially valuable consumer product.
For claim 44, Santillan further discloses wherein the metal oxide comprises CaO from a source of the metal oxide [0042, 0048 and 0071], and suggests the CaO being commercially available at [0005 and 0037] regarding the system handing effluent of commercial, industrial products, thus suggesting materials utilized in the system also being from commercially available sources .
Claims 2-4 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillan PGPUBS Document US 2022/0227644 (Santillan) in view of White patent 2,643,226, as applied to claims 1, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, 41, 42 and 44 above, and further in view of Whitehill et al PGPUBS Document US 2023/0097058 (Whitehill), Hickman et al PGPUBS Document US 2024/0189644 (Hickman) and the Escapenet machine translation of Yamamoto et al JP2009274893A, (Yamamoto).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents and the Escapenet machine translation of Yamamoto are identified with “[ ]” symbols with paragraph numbers for the translation of Yamamoto referring to the paragraph immediately above the “[ ]” symbols.
For claims 2-4, Santillan discloses wherein the metal oxide comprises CaO [0041, 0044 and 0048 re CaO source or cartridge, thus, inherently obtained from a commercial source].
Claims 2-4 also differ from Santillan by requiring wherein the CaO is produced by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and respectively under an air atmosphere, or under an inert gas atmosphere .
Whitehill teaches treatment of PFAS compounds by reacting them with CaO (Abstract, [0003], [0012 re treatment of PFAS and other pollutants in a thermos-mechanochemical (TMC) waste treatment system] and [0013 and 0044 re “reagent including…calcium oxide (CaO) and/or calcium hydroxide…added to the TMC chamber in order to further react with PFAS contained therein]).
Hickman teaches to decontaminate water having PFAS contaminants, and to decontaminate the water by reacting the PFAS with calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide [0035, 0041, 0042, 0055 and 0061], which may optionally comprise an air or inert gas atmosphere in a reactor for heating and reacting the PFAS with nitrogen [0055], inherently being widely commercially available and effective so as to safely seal the PFAS reactants and formed byproducts from escaping into the atmosphere outside the vessel.
Yamamoto teaches detoxification of HFC-134a contaminant [0001-0003], by thermally decomposing calcium hydroxide into calcium oxide, followed by thermally decomposing the HFC-134a into calcium carbonate by contacting the contaminant with, in a process characterized as having enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the PFAS contaminants [0006-0010].
Yamamoto also teaches the decomposition reaction of calcium hydroxide as optionally being carried out in an oxidizing or alternatively in a non-oxidizing atmosphere, such as in an inert gas or nitrogen atmosphere, to allow for a greater increase in the specific area of calcium oxide produced and increase the reaction activity of the produced calcium oxide [0028-0029].
For claims 2 and 3, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment decontamination industry, to have modified the Santillan method, by producing the CaO (calcium oxide) by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and respectively under an air or inert atmosphere, such as being in contact with nitrogen in the reactor, in order to more continuously and reliably provide the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants, and with an optimized enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the fluorocarbon contaminant, as cumulatively taught by Whitehill, Hickman and Yamamoto.
For claim 4, Hickman specifically teaches wherein the inert gas atmosphere specifically comprises nitrogen, argon, or a combination thereof ( [0055 regarding utilizing nitrogen with heated treatment of PFAS or PFOS by calcium oxide] ).
It would have been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have utilized specifically nitrogen, to provide the inert gas atmosphere for the Santillan method, as also cumulatively taught by Hickman and Yamamoto, since nitrogen is inherently widely available and provides a safe, non-hazardous environment for the reaction to occur, and also to allow for a greater increase in the specific area of calcium oxide produced and increase the reaction activity of the produced calcium oxide.
For claims 26-28, Santillan discloses wherein the metal oxide comprises CaO [0041, 0044 and 0048 re CaO source or cartridge, thus, inherently obtained from a commercial source].
Claims 26-28 also differ from Santillan by requiring wherein the heat source is configured to produce CaO by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and respectively under an air atmosphere, or under an inert gas atmosphere .
Whitehill teaches treatment of PFAS compounds by reacting them with CaO (Abstract, [0003], [0012 re treatment of PFAS and other pollutants in a thermos-mechanochemical (TMC) waste treatment system] and [0013 and 0044 re “reagent including…calcium oxide (CaO) and/or calcium hydroxide…added to the TMC chamber in order to further react with PFAS contained therein]).
Hickman teaches to decontaminate water having PFAS contaminants, and to decontaminate the water by reacting the PFAS with calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide [0035, 0041, 0042, 0055 and 0061], which may optionally comprise an air or inert gas atmosphere in a reactor for heating and reacting the PFAS with nitrogen [0055], inherently being widely commercially available and effective so as to safely seal the PFAS reactants and formed byproducts from escaping into the atmosphere outside the vessel.
Yamamoto teaches detoxification of HFC-134a contaminant [0001-0003], by thermally decomposing calcium hydroxide into calcium oxide, followed by thermally decomposing the HFC-134a into calcium carbonate by contacting the contaminant with, in a process characterized as having enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the PFAS contaminants [0006-0010].
Yamamoto also teaches the decomposition reaction of calcium hydroxide as optionally being carried out in an oxidizing or alternatively in a non-oxidizing atmosphere, such as in an inert gas or nitrogen atmosphere, to allow for a greater increase in the specific area of calcium oxide produced and increase the reaction activity of the produced calcium oxide [0028-0029].
For claims 26 and 27, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment decontamination industry, to have modified the Santillan system, by configuring the heat source for producing CaO (calcium oxide) by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and respectively under an air or inert atmosphere, such as being in contact with nitrogen in the reactor, in order to more continuously and reliably provide the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants, and with an optimized enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the fluorocarbon contaminant, as cumulatively taught by Whitehill, Hickman and Yamamoto.
For claim 28, Hickman specifically teaches wherein the inert gas atmosphere specifically comprises nitrogen, argon, or a combination thereof ( [0055 regarding utilizing nitrogen with heated treatment of PFAS or PFOS by calcium oxide] ).
It would have been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have utilized specifically nitrogen to provide the inert gas atmosphere for the Santillan system, as also cumulatively taught by Hickman and Yamamoto, since nitrogen is inherently widely available and provides a safe, non-hazardous environment for the reaction to occur, and also to allow for a greater increase in the specific area of calcium oxide produced and increase the reaction activity of the produced calcium oxide.
Claims 5-7, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillan PGPUBS Document US 2022/0227644 (Santillan) in view of White patent 2,643,226, as applied to claims 1, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, 41, 42 and 44 above, and further in view of Whitehill et al PGPUBS Document US 2023/0097058 (Whitehill) and the Escapenet machine translation of Yamamoto et al JP2009274893A, (Yamamoto).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents and the translation of Yamamoto are identified with “[ ]” symbols, with paragraph numbers for the translation of Yamamoto referring to the paragraph immediately above the “[ ]” symbols.
For claims 5-7, Santillan discloses wherein the metal oxide comprises CaO [0041, 0044 and 0048 re CaO source or cartridge].
Claim 5 differs from Santillan by requiring wherein the CaO is produced by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and under vacuum conditions.
For claim 5, Whitehill teaches treatment of PFAS compounds by reacting them with CaO, such CaO (calcium oxide) and/or Ca(OH)2, (Abstract, [0003], [0012 re treatment of PFAS and other pollutants in a thermos-mechanochemical (TMC) waste treatment system], [0013 and 0044 re “reagent including…calcium oxide (CaO) and/or calcium hydroxide…added to the TMC chamber in order to further react with PFAS contained therein]) and at moderate temperatures within the range of approximately 400°C to 500°C [0047 re the treatment being conducted at moderate temperatures in a range of about 160 to 650 degrees F, thus close to or overlapping the claimed range]).
Also, for claim 5, Yamamoto teaches detoxification of HFC-134a contaminant [0001-0003], by thermally decomposing calcium hydroxide into calcium oxide, followed by thermally decomposing the HFC-134a into calcium carbonate by contacting the contaminant with, in a process characterized as having enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the PFAS contaminants [0006-0010].
Specifically, for claim 5, Whitehill also teaches treatment of the PFAS and other contaminants being under vacuum conditions ([0051 regarding TMC treatment conducted under negative pressures so as to provide a vacuum to flow vapors coming off of waste feedstocks and to enable negative pressure modules to intake gaseous byproducts] ).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment decontamination industry, to have modified the Santillan method, by producing the CaO (calcium oxide) by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and under vacuum conditions, as cumulatively taught or suggested by Whitehill and Yamamoto, in order to more continuously and reliably provide the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants, with enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the fluorocarbon contaminant, and additionally as cumulatively taught by Whitehill and Yamamoto, to enhance collection and removal of vaporized byproducts of the reacting.
Claim 6 differs from Santillan by requiring wherein the CaO is produced by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and over a period of one minute.
For claim 6, Whitehill teaches treatment of PFAS compounds by reacting them with CaO, such CaO (calcium oxide) and/or Ca(OH)2, (Abstract, [0003], [0012 re treatment of PFAS and other pollutants in a thermos-mechanochemical (TMC) waste treatment system], [0013 and 0044 re “reagent including…calcium oxide (CaO) and/or calcium hydroxide…added to the TMC chamber in order to further react with PFAS contained therein]) and at moderate temperatures within the range of approximately 400°C to 500°C [0047 re the treatment being conducted at moderate temperatures in a range of about 160 to 650 degrees F, thus close to or overlapping the claimed range]).
Also, for claim 6, Yamamoto teaches detoxification of HFC-134a contaminant [0001-0003], by thermally decomposing calcium hydroxide into calcium oxide, followed by thermally decomposing the HFC-134a into calcium carbonate by contacting the contaminant with, in a process characterized as having enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the PFAS contaminants [0006-0010].
For claim 6, Santillan teaches the reaction time for thermal decomposition of the PFAS as being over one minute to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction, hence suggests thermal decomposition of the calcium hydroxide being over a period of at least one minute to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction [0081 re time durations for thermal treatment tested including 10, 20, 30 and 60 minutes].
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment decontamination industry, to have produced the CaO (calcium oxide) by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and over a period of at least one minute, as cumulatively taught by Santillan, Whitehill and Yamamoto, in order to more continuously and reliably provide the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants, with enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the fluorocarbon contaminant, and additionally to thoroughly and completely decompose the available volume of Ca(OH)2) so as to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction to optimize production of the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants.
Claim 7 differs from Santillan by requiring wherein the CaO is produced by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, at moderate temperatures within the range of approximately 400-500 degrees C and over a period of one minute.
For claim 7, Whitehill teaches treatment of PFAS compounds by reacting them with CaO, such CaO (calcium oxide) and/or Ca(OH)2, (Abstract, [0003], [0012 re treatment of PFAS and other pollutants in a thermos-mechanochemical (TMC) waste treatment system], [0013 and 0044 re “reagent including…calcium oxide (CaO) and/or calcium hydroxide…added to the TMC chamber in order to further react with PFAS contained therein]) and at moderate temperatures within the range of approximately 400°C to 500°C [0047 re the treatment being conducted at moderate temperatures in a range of about 160 to 650 degrees F, thus close to or overlapping the claimed range]).
Also, for claim 7, Yamamoto teaches detoxification of HFC-134a contaminant [0001-0003], by thermally decomposing calcium hydroxide into calcium oxide, followed by thermally decomposing the HFC-134a into calcium carbonate by contacting the contaminant with, in a process characterized as having enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the PFAS contaminants [0006-0010].
Yamamoto also suggests the thermal decomposition processing temperature being at moderate temperatures of in the range of 400 to 500 degrees C, by teaching in [0041-0042] decomposition of HFC by contact with calcium oxide being carried out in the range of 773-873 degrees K, to optimize reactivity and processing efficiency, thus overlapping the claimed temperature range of decomposition (773 degrees K corresponding to 499.85 degrees C).
For claim 7, Santillan teaches the reaction time for thermal decomposition of the PFAS as being over one minute to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction, hence suggests thermal decomposition of the calcium hydroxide being over a period of at least one minute, i.e. “over a period of one minute” to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction [0081 re time durations for thermal treatment tested including 10, 20, 30 and 60 minutes].
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment decontamination industry, to have produced the CaO (calcium oxide) by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, at moderate temperatures of 400-500 degrees C, and over a period of one minute, as cumulatively taught by Santillan, Whitehill and Yamamoto, in order to more continuously and reliably provide the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants, with enhanced and optimized reaction efficiency for decomposing the fluorocarbon contaminant, and additionally to thoroughly and completely decompose the available volume of Ca(OH)2) so as to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction to optimize production of the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants.
For claims 29-31, Santillan discloses wherein the metal oxide comprises CaO [0041, 0044 and 0048 re CaO source or cartridge].
Claim 29 differs from Santillan by requiring wherein the CaO is produced by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and under vacuum conditions.
For claim 29, Whitehill teaches treatment of PFAS compounds by reacting them with CaO, such CaO (calcium oxide) and/or Ca(OH)2, (Abstract, [0003], [0012 re treatment of PFAS and other pollutants in a thermos-mechanochemical (TMC) waste treatment system], [0013 and 0044 re “reagent including…calcium oxide (CaO) and/or calcium hydroxide…added to the TMC chamber in order to further react with PFAS contained therein]) and at moderate temperatures within the range of approximately 400°C to 500°C [0047 re the treatment being conducted at moderate temperatures in a range of about 160 to 650 degrees F, thus close to or overlapping the claimed range]).
Also, for claim 29, Yamamoto teaches detoxification of HFC-134a contaminant [0001-0003], by thermally decomposing calcium hydroxide into calcium oxide, followed by thermally decomposing the HFC-134a into calcium carbonate by contacting the contaminant with, in a process characterized as having enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the PFAS contaminants [0006-0010].
Specifically, for claim 29, Whitehill also teaches treatment of the PFAS and other contaminants being under vacuum conditions ([0051 regarding TMC treatment conducted under negative pressures so as to provide a vacuum to flow vapors coming off of waste feedstocks and to enable negative pressure modules to intake gaseous byproducts] ).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment decontamination industry, to have modified the Santillan system, by configuring the heat source for producing the CaO (calcium oxide) by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and under vacuum conditions, as cumulatively taught or suggested by Whitehill and Yamamoto, in order to more continuously and reliably provide the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants, with enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the fluorocarbon contaminant, and additionally as cumulatively taught by Whitehill and Yamamoto, to enhance collection and removal of vaporized byproducts of the reacting.
Claim 30 differs from Santillan by requiring wherein the CaO is produced by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and over a period of one minute.
For claim 30, Whitehill teaches treatment of PFAS compounds by reacting them with CaO, such CaO (calcium oxide) and/or Ca(OH)2, (Abstract, [0003], [0012 re treatment of PFAS and other pollutants in a thermos-mechanochemical (TMC) waste treatment system], [0013 and 0044 re “reagent including…calcium oxide (CaO) and/or calcium hydroxide…added to the TMC chamber in order to further react with PFAS contained therein]) and at moderate temperatures within the range of approximately 400°C to 500°C [0047 re the treatment being conducted at moderate temperatures in a range of about 160 to 650 degrees F, thus close to or overlapping the claimed range]).
Also, for claim 30, Yamamoto teaches detoxification of HFC-134a contaminant [0001-0003], by thermally decomposing calcium hydroxide into calcium oxide, followed by thermally decomposing the HFC-134a into calcium carbonate by contacting the contaminant with, in a process characterized as having enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the PFAS contaminants [0006-0010].
For claim 30, Santillan teaches the reaction time for thermal decomposition of the PFAS as being over one minute to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction, hence suggests thermal decomposition of the calcium hydroxide being over a period of at least one minute to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction [0081 re time durations for thermal treatment tested including 10, 20, 30 and 60 minutes].
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment decontamination industry, to have configured the heat source of the Santillan system to produce the CaO (calcium oxide) by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, and over a period of at least one minute, as cumulatively taught by Santillan, Whitehill and Yamamoto, in order to more continuously and reliably provide the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants, with enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the fluorocarbon contaminant, and additionally to thoroughly and completely decompose the available volume of Ca(OH)2) so as to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction to optimize production of the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants.
Claim 31 differs from Santillan by requiring wherein the CaO is produced by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, at moderate temperatures within the range of approximately 400-500 degrees C and over a period of one minute.
For claim 31, Whitehill teaches treatment of PFAS compounds by reacting them with CaO, such CaO (calcium oxide) and/or Ca(OH)2, (Abstract, [0003], [0012 re treatment of PFAS and other pollutants in a thermos-mechanochemical (TMC) waste treatment system], [0013 and 0044 re “reagent including…calcium oxide (CaO) and/or calcium hydroxide…added to the TMC chamber in order to further react with PFAS contained therein]) and at moderate temperatures within the range of approximately 400°C to 500°C [0047 re the treatment being conducted at moderate temperatures in a range of about 160 to 650 degrees F, thus close to or overlapping the claimed range]).
Also, for claim 31, Yamamoto teaches detoxification of HFC-134a contaminant [0001-0003], by thermally decomposing calcium hydroxide into calcium oxide, followed by thermally decomposing the HFC-134a into calcium carbonate by contacting the contaminant with, in a process characterized as having enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the PFAS contaminants [0006-0010].
Yamamoto also suggests the thermal decomposition processing temperature being at moderate temperatures of in the range of 400 to 500 degrees C, by teaching in [0041-0042] decomposition of HFC by contact with calcium oxide being carried out in the range of 773-873 degrees K, to optimize reactivity and processing efficiency, thus overlapping the claimed temperature range of decomposition (773 degrees K corresponding to 499.85 degrees C).
For claim 31, Santillan teaches the reaction time for thermal decomposition of the PFAS as being over one minute to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction, hence suggests thermal decomposition of the calcium hydroxide being over a period of at least one minute, i.e. “over a period of one minute” to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction [0081 re time durations for thermal treatment tested including 10, 20, 30 and 60 minutes].
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment decontamination industry, to have produced the CaO (calcium oxide) by the thermal decomposition of Ca(OH)2, at moderate temperatures of 400-500 degrees C, and over a period of one minute, as cumulatively taught by Santillan, Whitehill and Yamamoto, in order to more continuously and reliably provide the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants, with enhanced and optimized reaction efficiency for decomposing the fluorocarbon contaminant, and additionally to thoroughly and completely decompose the available volume of Ca(OH)2) so as to yield a complete stoichiometric reaction to optimize production of the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants.
Claims 8-10 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillan PGPUBS Document US 2022/0227644 (Santillan) in view of White patent 2,643,226, as applied to claims 1,17, 18, 20-23, 25, 41, 42 and 44 above, and further in view of Hickman et al PGPUBS Document US 2024/0189644 (Hickman) and Bennett al PGPUBS Document US 2024/0336510 (Bennett), having an effective filing date of 04/26/2023 based on a provisional application, predating the effective filing date of the instant application of 06/02/2023.
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claims 8 and 32 differ by requiring that the metal oxide comprises MgO. Bennett teaches thermally reacting PFAS contaminants at moderate to high temperatures with magnesium oxide or hydroxide, used as an alternative to calcium oxide, or used in combination with calcium oxide, to produce a relatively non-toxic solid, fluoride salt product (all taught at [0006, 0008, 0015-0020, 0049 and 0050], [0050 reciting solid reactants including oxide bases of calcium and magnesium] and [0049 concerning mineralization reactors operating at temperatures of between 300 and 1000 degrees C]).
Bennett teaches such reaction occurring in a mineralization reactor in series with an oxidation reactor [0047-0049] and effective to remove and minimize emission of light fluorinated hydrocarbons of the PFAS contaminants [0050].
It would have thus been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the Santillan method or system, respectively, by utilizing magnesium oxide in addition to or in place of calcium oxide, for reacting with the PFAS, in a mineralization reactor, as taught by Bennett, in order to produce easily disposable relatively fluoride salt products.
Claims 8 and 32 also differ by requiring the MgO being used under an air atmosphere.
Hickman teaches to decontaminate water having PFAS contaminants, and to decontaminate the water by reacting the PFAS with calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide [0035, 0041, 0042, 0055 and 0061], which may optionally comprise an air or inert gas atmosphere in a reactor for heating and reacting the PFAS with nitrogen [0055], inherently being widely commercially available and effective so as to safely seal the PFAS reactants and formed byproducts from escaping into the atmosphere outside the vessel.
It would have been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have provided an air or inert gas atmosphere for the Santillan method or system, as taught by Hickman, to allow for a greater increase in the specific area of calcium oxide produced and increase the reaction activity of the produced calcium oxide.
Claims 9, 10, 33 and 34 also differ by requiring the metal oxide comprises MgO. Bennett teaches thermally reacting PFAS contaminants at moderate to high temperatures with magnesium oxide or hydroxide, used as an alternative to calcium oxide, or used in combination with calcium oxide, to produce a relatively non-toxic solid, fluoride salt product (all taught at [0006, 0008, 0015-0020, 0049 and 0050], [0050 reciting solid reactants including oxide bases of calcium and magnesium] and [0049 concerning mineralization reactors operating at temperatures of between 300 and 1000 degrees C]).
Bennett teaches such reaction occurring in a mineralization reactor in series with an oxidation reactor [0047-0049]and effective to remove and minimize emission of light fluorinated hydrocarbons of the PFAS contaminants [0050].
It would have thus been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the Santillan method or system, by utilizing magnesium oxide in addition to or in place of calcium oxide, for reacting with the PFAS, in a mineralization reactor, as taught by Bennett, in order to produce easily disposable relatively fluoride salt products.
Claims 9, 10, 33 and 34 also differ by requiring the MgO being used under an inert gas atmosphere, with claims 10 and 34 specifically requiring use of nitrogen or argon as the inert gas.
Hickman teaches to decontaminate water having PFAS contaminants, and to decontaminate the water by reacting the PFAS with calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide [0035, 0041, 0042, 0055 and 0061], which may optionally comprise an air or inert gas atmosphere in a reactor for heating and reacting the PFAS with nitrogen [0055], inherently being widely commercially available and effective so as to safely seal the PFAS reactants and formed byproducts from escaping into the atmosphere outside the vessel.
It would have been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have utilized specifically nitrogen, to provide an air or inert gas atmosphere for the Santillan method or system, respectfully, as taught by Hickman, to allow for a greater increase in the specific area of calcium oxide produced and increase the reaction activity of the produced calcium oxide. since nitrogen is inherently widely available and provides a safe, non-hazardous environment for the reaction to occur, and also to allow for a greater increase in the specific area of calcium oxide produced and increase the reaction activity of the produced calcium oxide.
Claims 11 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillan PGPUBS Document US 2022/0227644 (Santillan) in view of White patent 2,643,226, as applied to claims 1,17, 18, 20-23, 25, 41, 42 and 44 above, and further in view of Whitehill et al PGPUBS Document US 2023/0097058 (Whitehill) and Bennett al PGPUBS Document US 2024/0336510 (Bennett), having an effective filing date of 04/26/2023 based on a provisional application, predating the effective filing date of the instant application of 06/02/2023.
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For claims 11 and 35, Santillan discloses wherein the metal oxide comprises CaO [0041, 0044 and 0048 re CaO source or cartridge].
Claims 11 and 35 differ by requiring the metal oxide comprises MgO.
Bennett teaches thermally reacting PFAS contaminants at moderate to high temperatures with magnesium oxide or hydroxide, used as an alternative to calcium oxide, or used in combination with calcium oxide, to produce a relatively non-toxic solid, fluoride salt product (all taught at [0006, 0008, 0015-0020, 0049 and 0050], [0050 reciting solid reactants including oxide bases of calcium and magnesium] and [0049 concerning mineralization reactors operating at temperatures of between 300 and 1000 degrees C]).
Bennett teaches such reaction occurring in a mineralization reactor in series with an oxidation reactor [0047-0049] and effective to remove and minimize emission of light fluorinated hydrocarbons of the PFAS contaminants [0050].
It would have thus been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the Santillan method or system, by utilizing magnesium oxide in addition to or in place of calcium oxide, for reacting with the PFAS, in a mineralization reactor, as taught by Bennett, in order to produce easily disposable relatively fluoride salt products.
Claims 11 and 35 also differ by requiring the MgO being used under vacuum conditions.
Whitehill teaches treatment of PFAS compounds by reacting them with CaO, such CaO (calcium oxide) and/or Ca(OH)2, (Abstract, [0003], [0012 re treatment of PFAS and other pollutants in a thermos-mechanochemical (TMC) waste treatment system], [0013 and 0044 re “reagent including…calcium oxide (CaO) and/or calcium hydroxide…added to the TMC chamber in order to further react with PFAS contained therein]).
Whitehill also teaches treatment of the PFAS and other contaminants being under vacuum conditions ([0051 regarding TMC treatment conducted under negative pressures so as to provide a vacuum to flow vapors coming off of waste feedstocks and to enable negative pressure modules to intake gaseous byproducts] ).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment decontamination industry, to have also modified the Santillan method or system, respectfully, by producing the MgO (magnesium oxide) under vacuum conditions, as taught or suggested by Whitehill, in order to more continuously and reliably provide the CaO utilized for the reacting with the PFAS contaminants, with enhanced reaction efficiency for decomposing the fluorocarbon contaminant, and to enhance collection and removal of vaporized byproducts of the reacting.
Claims 13, 19, 24, 36, 37, 43 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillan PGPUBS Document US 2022/0227644 (Santillan) in view of White patent 2,643,226, as applied to claims 1,17, 18, 20-23, 25, 41, 42 and 44 above, and further in view of Bennett al PGPUBS Document US 2024/0336510 (Bennett), having an effective filing date of 04/26/2023 based on a provisional application, predating the effective filing date of the instant application of 06/02/2023.
Claims 13, 24, 36, 37 and 45 further differs by requiring wherein MgO, or specifically “commercially available” MgO, is used as the metal oxide, with claims 13 and 37 requiring such usage being at moderate temperatures within the range of approximately 400°C to 500°C over a period of one minute, and claim 36 requiring such usage being over a period of at least one minute.
Bennett teaches thermally reacting PFAS contaminants at moderate to high temperatures with magnesium oxide or hydroxide, used as an alternative to calcium oxide, or used in combination with calcium oxide, to produce a relatively non-toxic solid, fluoride salt product (all taught at [0006, 0008, 0015-0020, 0049 and 0050], [0050 reciting solid reactants including oxide bases of calcium and magnesium], [0049 concerning mineralization reactors operating at temperatures of between 300 and 1000 degrees C, [0050 reciting solid reactants including oxide bases of calcium and magnesium], and [0051 regarding residence time in such reactors being for a time of anywhere from 0.5 seconds to 10 minutes]).
Bennett teaches such reaction occurring in a mineralization reactor in series with an oxidation reactor [0047-0049] and effective to remove and minimize emission of light fluorinated hydrocarbons of the PFAS contaminants [0050]. Bennett teaches in [0050] that mineralization reactor conditions should be sufficient to convert any PFAS present in effluent to such fluorine salt.
It would have thus been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the Santillan method system, by utilizing magnesium oxide in addition to or in place of calcium oxide, for reacting with the PFAS, in a mineralization reactor, and for claims 13, 36 and 37, to have operated a heat source in or for such reactor at moderate operating temperatures of 400-500 degrees C and for at least one minute or more, all as taught by Bennett, in order to produce easily disposable relatively fluoride salt products, and so as to convert any PFAS present in effluent to such fluorine salt.
For claims 24 and 45, use of magnesium oxide, as taught by Bennett implies that such mineral oxide is “commercially available” in order to effect actual operation of the method or system.
Claims 19 and 43 further differ by requiring, wherein the non-toxic product comprises a non-toxic magnesium fluoride (MgF2).
Bennett teaches thermally reacting PFAS contaminants at moderate to high temperatures with magnesium oxide or hydroxide, used as an alternative to calcium oxide, or used in combination with calcium oxide, to produce a relatively non-toxic solid, fluoride salt product (all taught at [0006, 0008, 0015-0020, 0049 and 0050], [0050 reciting solid reactants including oxide bases of calcium and magnesium], [0049 concerning mineralization reactors operating at temperatures of between 300 and 1000 degrees C, [0050 reciting solid reactants including oxide bases of calcium and magnesium], and [0051 regarding residence time in such reactors being for a time of anywhere from 0.5 seconds to 10 minutes]).
Thus Bennett by teaching production of magnesium oxide and production of fluoride salts in [0049 and 0050] is inherently teaching production of a non-toxic product of magnesium fluoride.
Bennett teaches such reaction occurring in a mineralization reactor in series with an oxidation reactor [0047-0049] and effective to remove and minimize emission of light fluorinated hydrocarbons of the PFAS contaminants [0050]. Bennett teaches in [0050] that mineralization reactor conditions should be sufficient to convert any PFAS present in effluent to such fluorine salt.
It would have thus been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the Santillan method system, by utilizing magnesium oxide in addition to or in place of calcium oxide, for reacting with the PFAS, in a mineralization reactor, and for claims 13, 36 and 37, to have operated a heat source in or for such reactor at moderate operating temperatures of 400-500 degrees C and for at least one minute or more, all as taught by Bennett, in order to produce easily disposable relatively fluoride salt products, and so as to convert any PFAS present in effluent to such fluorine salt.
Claims 14, 15, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillan PGPUBS Document US 2022/0227644 (Santillan) in view of White patent 2,643,226, as applied to claims 1,17, 18, 20-23, 25, 41, 42 and 44 above, and further in view of Motkuri et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0369536 (Motkuri).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For claims 14,15, 38 and 39, Santillan discloses wherein the vessel comprises CaO and suggests the vessel comprises a fixed type bed containing and holding the CaO (figure 1 and [0048 ] concerning the CaO being in the form of pellets in a cartridge, hence forming a bed through which a contaminated stream travels).
Claims 14, 15, 38 and 39 further differ by explicitly requiring wherein the vessel comprising CaO, MgO, Ca(OH)2, Mg(OH)2, or combinations thereof, is in the form of a packed bed for claims 14 and 38, or in the form of a fluidized bed for claims 15 and 39.
Motkuri teaches capture and degradation of PFAS from water, in sampling applications, wherein the PFAS are captured and degraded in a fixed (i.e. ‘packed) or ‘fluidized) type bed, which may comprise a metal oxide, or sorbent, as a fixed or fluidized bed in a column [0150-0154]. Motkuri teaches or suggests that such type beds facilitate maximum content of the water containing the PFAS with material for capturing and degrading the PFAS, while facilitating continuous flow through the bed [0154 ].
It would have also been obvious to the skilled artisan to have further modified the method or system, respectfully, of Santillan, to have located the calcium oxide granules or other materials in either a packed, or fluidized bed within the vessel, as taught by Motkuri, so as to facilitate maximum content of the water containing the PFAS with material for capturing and degrading the PFAS, while facilitating flow through the bed.
Claims 16 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillan PGPUBS Document US 2022/0227644 (Santillan) in view of White patent 2,643,226, as applied to claims 1, 2, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, 26, 41, 42 and 44 above, and further in view of James et al PGPUBS Document US 2008/0169196 (James).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For claims 16 and 40, Santillan discloses wherein the vessel comprises CaO and suggests the vessel comprises a fixed type bed containing and holding the CaO (figure 1 and [0048 ] concerning the CaO being in the form of pellets in a cartridge, hence forming a bed through which a contaminated stream travels).
Claims 16 and 40 further differ by explicitly requiring wherein the vessel comprising CaO, MgO, Ca(OH)2, Mg(OH)2, or combinations thereof, is in the form of a sprouted bed.
James teaches treatment of organic pollutants including halogenated hydrocarbons from aquatic environments [0003] and teaches polluted streams being treated for removal of organic pollutants in sprouted beds [0006 and 0032-0033]. James teaches that such configuration evenly distributes treating bed particles throughout the bed.
Hence, it would have also been obvious to the skilled artisan to have further modified the method or system, respectfully, of Santillan, to have located the calcium oxide granules or other materials in a sprouted bed, as taught by James, so as to facilitate even distribution of treating particles of the metal oxide for reacting with the PFAS, while facilitating flow through the bed.
Such sleeve dimensions are deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to adapt the size of the sleeve of the apparatus and accompanying container to a particular application. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of MgO which is used as the metal oxide, being produced by thermal decomposition.
Prior art concerning use of MgO as a metal oxide in a process for destruction of PFAS compounds by heating and reacting with metal oxide to produce a solid non-toxic product is limited to Bennett PGPUBS Document US 2024/0336510 which in [0049-0051 teaches such use of MgO, optionally in combination with other oxides, including CaO, for thermally reacting with PFAS compounds at the cited temperature range. However, Bennett lacks any suggestion of such MgO being produced by thermal destruction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art is cited concerning removal and destruction of PFAS contaminants from liquid and solid streams.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions contact the Electronic Business Center EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
JWD
06/16/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights