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
Claims(s) 1-24, is/are filed on 06/30/2026 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 10, 12-16, 19-21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabas (US 20180141837 A1) in view of Evoqua (WO 2020247029 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nabas discloses a system for treating water (para [0001]- This invention is about the nano-bubble-and-hydroxyl-radical generator ... processing polluted water without chemicals using same), comprising: a plasma reactor (1) fluidly connected to both a source of water and to a source of a carrier gas (Fig. 1; para [0051]-(0052]- The nanobubble- and-hydroxyl-radical generator ... OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status ... nano-bubble-and hydroxyl-radical generator (1 ) ... the inflow pipe (200) connected to the inflow part of the pipe (300) to supply fluids consisting of various sewages or circulated fluids such as treated water ... the air supply part (100) prepared on the inflow part of the above pump (300) to supply the air from outside or gasses extracted from the air including ozone, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen), the plasma reactor configured to produce plasma activated excited gas (para [0051]- The nano-bubble-and-hydroxyl-radical generator. .. OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status); and a nanobubble generator (330, 340) constructed and arranged to form nanobubbles encapsulating the plasma activated excited gas in the water (Fig. 1; para [0051 ]- nano-bubble-and-hydroxyl-radical generator ... generating nano bubbles and hydroxyl radical refining and mixing gasses ... OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status; para [0060]- gasses in the water sent to the blades (330, 340) generate nano bubbles by interaction of the rotating blade (330) and the fixed blade (340) by driving of the motor axis (360)), the plasma reactor configured to promote liquid-phase reaction with the encapsulated plasma activated excited gas at the air-water interface of the nanobubbles (para [0051]- The nano-bubble-and-hydroxyl-radical generator ... generating nano bubbles and hydroxyl radical refining and mixing gasses ... OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status ... it resolves into oxygen and water after reacting to pollutants).
Nabas fails to disclose treating water comprising per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). However, Evoqua, drawn to treating water, discloses treating water comprising per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) using a plasma treatment (pg. 2, In 13-14- an onsite system for treating a source of water contaminated with PFAS; pg. 3, In 28-30- the PFAS elimination stage comprises an advanced oxidation process (AOP) reactor. For example, the AOP may involve a UV-persulfate treatment or a plasma treatment). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine treating water comprising per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) disclosed by Evoqua to the system disclosed by Nabas to broaden the application of the system (See Evoqua, pg. 3, In 28-30- the PFAS elimination stage comprises an advanced oxidation process (AOP) reactor. For example, the AOP may involve a UV-persulfate treatment or a plasma treatment).
Regarding claim 2, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the method of claim 1. Evoqua further discloses wherein the PFAS comprise perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (pg. 6, In 28-29- common PFAS such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and/or perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) may be removed from water.).
Regarding claim 3, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the system of claim 1. Nabas further discloses wherein the plasma reactor promotes generation of OH, O and/or H radicals (para [0051]- OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status).
Regarding claim 4, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the system of claim 1. Nabas further discloses wherein the nanobubbles have a mean diameter of less than about 1 um (para [0060]- gasses in the water sent to the blades (330, 340) generate nano bubbles).
Regarding claim 5, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the system of claim 4. Although Nabas does not specifically disclose wherein the nanobubbles have a mean diameter ranging from about 75 nm to about 200 nm, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the nanobubbles have a mean diameter ranging from about 75 nm to about 200 nm, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art ii is not inventive to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation (See Nabas, para [0060]- gasses in the water sent to the blades (330, 340) generate nano bubbles).
Regarding claim 6, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the system of claim 1. Although Nabas does not specifically disclose wherein a concentration of nanobubbles in the water comprising PFAS is in the range of about 1x10"6 to about 1x10"8 nanobubbles per ml, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a concentration of nanobubbles in the water comprising PFAS is in the range of about 1x10"6 to about 1x10"8 nanobubbles per ml, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is not inventive to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation (See Nabas, para [0060]- gasses in the water sent to the blades (330, 340) generate nano bubbles).
Regarding claim 9, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the system of claim 1. Evoqua further discloses comprising a concentrating unit operation fluidly connected to the source of water comprising PFAS upstream of the reactor (corresponding to the PFAS destruction unit) (Fig. 4 shows Nanofiltraion unit operation fluidly connected to the source of water upstream of the PFAS destruction unit; pg. 25, In 16-27- The water contaminated with PFAS is directed to the inlet of the one or more nanofiltration units ... The concentrate from the one or more nanofiltration units is enriched in PFAS ... The nanofiltration diafiltration concentration step). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the concentrating unit disclosed by Evoqua to upstream of the plasma reactor disclosed by Nabas to increase the PFAS elimination rate (See Evoqua, pg. 2, In 19-20).
Regarding claim 10, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the system of claim 1. Na bas further discloses wherein the nanobubble generator (330, 340) is positioned within the plasma reactor (1) (Fig. 1; para [0051)-[0052) The nano-bubble-and-hydroxyl-radical generator ... OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status ... the nano-bubble-and-hydroxyl-radical generator (1) is provided as a composition including multiple impellers (370), the pump (300) that blades (330, 340) are embedded; para [0060]- gasses in the water sent to the blades (330, 340) generate nano bubbles).
Regarding claim 12, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the system of claim 1. Evoqua further discloses configured to remove at least about 95% of PFAS from the water (pg. 2, In 19-20- an overall elimination rate of PFAS greater than about 99%).
Regarding claim 13, Nabas discloses a method of treating water (para [0001]- processing polluted water without chemicals using same) comprising: forming plasma activated excited gas (para [0051]- The nano-bubble-and-hydroxyl-radical generator ... generating nano bubbles and hydroxyl radical refining and mixing gasses ... OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status): encapsulating the plasma activated excited gas with nanobubbles in water to be treated (para [0051]- The nano-bubble-and-hydroxylradical generator ... generating nano bubbles and hydroxyl radical refining and mixing gasses ... OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status; para [0060]- gasses in the water sent to the blades (330, 340) generate nano bubbles by interaction of the rotating blade (330) and the fixed blade (340) by driving of the motor axis (360)); and promoting liquid-phase reaction with the encapsulated plasma activated excited gas at the air-water interface of the nanobubbles (para [0051]- The nano-bubble-and-hydroxyl-radical generator ... generating nano bubbles and hydroxyl radical refining and mixing gasses ... OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status ... it resolves into oxygen and water after reacting to pollutants.). Nabas fails to disclose treating water comprising per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Evoqua, drawn to treating water, discloses treating water comprising per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) using a plasma treatment (pg. 2, In 13-14- an onsite system for treating a source of water contaminated with PFAS; pg. 3, In 28-30- the PFAS elimination stage comprises an advanced oxidation process (AOP) reactor. For example, the AOP may involve a UV-persulfate treatment or a plasma treatment). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine treating water comprising per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) disclosed by Evoqua to the method disclosed by Nabas to broaden the application of the method (See Evoqua, pg. 3, In 28-30- the PFAS elimination stage comprises an advanced oxidation process (AOP) reactor. For example, the AOP may involve a UV-persulfate treatment or a plasma treatment).
Regarding claim 14, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the method of claim 13. Evoqua further discloses wherein the PFAS comprise perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and/or perfiuorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (pg. 6, In 28-29- common PFAS such as perfiuorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and/or perfiuorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) may be removed from water.).
Regarding claim 15, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the method of claim 13. Nabas further discloses wherein the plasma activated excited gas comprises OH, O and/or H radicals (para [0051]- OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status).
Regarding claim 16, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the system of claim 13. Although Nabas does not specifically disclose wherein the nanobubbles have a mean diameter ranging from about 75 nm to about 200 nm, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the nanobubbles have a mean diameter ranging from about 75 nm to about 200 nm, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is not inventive to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation (See Nabas, para [0060]- gasses in the water sent to the blades (330, 340) generate nano bubbles).
Regarding claim 19, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the method of claim 13. Evoqua further discloses comprising concentrating PFAS in the water to be treated (pg. 25, In 16-27-The water contaminated with PFAS is directed to the inlet of the one or more nanofiltration units ... The concentrate from the one or more nanofiltration units is enriched in PFAS ... The nanofiltration diafiltration concentration step). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the concentrating step disclosed by Evoqua to the method disclosed by Nabas to increase the PFAS elimination rate (See Evoqua, pg. 2, In 19-20).
Regarding claim 20, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the method of claim 13. Nabas further discloses comprising adjusting a temperature, a flow rate and/or a flow direction of the water comprising PFAS to be treated (para [0058]-control the flow rate of supplied or discharged fluids and open and shut the flow path).
Regarding claim 21, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the method of claim 13. Nabas further discloses wherein the plasma activated excited gas is formed concurrently with the nanobubbles (para [0051]-[0052] generating nano bubbles and hydroxyl radical refining and mixing gasses such as air, oxygen and ozone in fluid selectively ... OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status ... supply the air from outside or gasses extracted from the air including ozone, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen).
Regarding claim 24, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the method of claim 13. Evoqua further discloses associated with a PFAS removal rate of at least about 95% (pg. 2, In 19-20- an overall elimination rate of PFAS greater than about 99%).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabas in view of Evoqua and Kerfoot (US 20100078372 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the system of claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the nanobubbles exhibit neutral buoyancy. However, Kerfoot, drawn to nanobubbles, discloses the nanobubbles exhibit neutral buoyancy (para [0160]- the adjustment of the buoyancy of the coated micro or nano sized microbubbles, since with a thick enough coating neutral buoyancy can be reached.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the neutral buoyancy disclosed by Kerfoot to the nanobubbles disclosed by Nabas to improve reaction efficiency (See Kerfoot, para [0029]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabas in view of Evoqua and Abb (WO 2020120741 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the system of claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the plasma reactor comprises a controllable power supply. However, Abb, drawn to water treatment, discloses the plasma reactor comprises a controllable power supply (130) (Fig. 1; para [0045]- the control unit 120 is adapted to change settings of power supply 130, pulse generator and gas flow or pressure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to to combine the controllable power supply disclosed by Abb to the plasma reactor disclosed by Nabas to improve the efficiency of the system (See Abb, para [0008]).
Regarding claim 17, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the method of claim 13, but fail to disclose further comprising adjusting an electrical voltage associated with forming the plasma activated excited gas in response to at least one measured parameter of the water comprising PFAS to be treated. However, Abb, drawn to water treatment, discloses adjusting an electrical voltage associated with forming the plasma activated excited gas in response to at least one measured parameter (Fig. 1; para [0022]- By the energy of a plasma, generated in the DBD, the gases are converted into reactive gases; para [0041]-[0044]- the sensors devices 140, 150, 160, 170, 180 are configured to monitor at least one of a plasma ... the control unit may be able, with an algorithm, run by the processing unit, to optimize, based on the sensor data from the sensor devices, pulse characteristics like voltage). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have to combine adjusting an electrical voltage associated with forming the plasma activated excited gas in response to at least one measured parameter disclosed by Abb to the water comprising PFAS to be treated disclosed by Nabas in view of Evoqua to improve the efficiency of the system (See Abb, para [0008]).
Claim(s) 11, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabas in view of Evoqua and Katholieke (WO 2010142004 A2).
Regarding claim 11, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the system of claim 1, but fail to disclose further comprising a foam fractionation unit operation fluidly connected upstream or downstream of the plasma reactor. However, Katholieke, drawn to water treatment, discloses a foam fractionation unit operation fluidly connected upstream or downstream of the system (Fig. 12; pg. 23, In 2-11- particulate organic matter and colloidal organic matter or combined with a foam fractionation apparatus are used to remove organic matter. All these are foreseen of an input to receive the (dirty) water (148) and an out put (149) to return the (clean) water to the aquatic farming system). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the foam fractionation unit disclosed by Katholieke to the plasma reactor disclosed by Nabas to increase the PFAS elimination rate (See Katholieke, pg. 23, In 2-3).
Regarding claim 22, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the method of claim 13. Evoqua further discloses a product stream containing unreacted PFAS (pg. 2, In 19-20- an overall elimination rate of PFAS greater than about 99%), but fail to disclose further comprising delivering a product stream containing unreacted PFAS to a foam fractionation process. However, Katholieke, drawn to water treatment, discloses a foam fractionation process (pg. 23, In 2-3- particulate organic matter and colloidal organic matter or combined with a foam fractionation apparatus are used to remove organic matter.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the foam fractionation process disclosed by Katholieke to the product stream containing unreacted PFAS disclosed by Nabas in view of Evoqua to increase the PFAS elimination rate (See Katholieke, pg. 23, In 2-3).
Regarding claim 23, Nabas in view of Evoqua and further in view of Katholieke disclose the method of claim 22. Katholieke further discloses comprising mineralizing PFAS in a fractionated stream (Fig. 12; pg. 23, In 2-11- particulate organic matter and colloidal organic matter or combined with a foam fractionation apparatus are used to remove organic matter. All these are foreseen of an input to receive the (dirty) water (148) and an output (149) to return the (clean) water to the aquatic farming system ... The water collection tank (133) is provided with a transport line (e.g. transport pipe (141) and pump (135)) to deliver the waste to an input (131) of a gasification tank (134 ); pg. 65, In 17-18- the organic load has been partially mineralized to the feed distributor (134)).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabas in view of Evoqua and Bohdy (US 20200352016 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Nabas in view of Evoqua disclose the method of claim 13, but fail to disclose further comprising adjusting a concentration or a size of the nanobubbles. However, Bohdy, drawn to nanobubbles, discloses adjusting a concentration or a size of the nanobubbles (para [0050]- nanobubbles of controlled size and composition). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the adjusting a size of the nanobubbles disclosed by Bohdy to the nanobubbles disclosed by Nabas to enhance the safty and efficiency of the method (See Bohdy, para [0050]).
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Nabas does not disclose generation of plasma activated excited gas.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Nabas states that “OH radical is an oxygen anionic substance generated in a plasma status” and that this radical is generated while gasses such as air, oxygen, and ozone are refined and mixed into the fluid. See Nabas at [0051] and [0060]. The claims recite “plasma activated excited gas” but do not require any particular structure for making that gas. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an OH radical generated in a plasma status and carried in the process gas meets this limitation. Features from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111.01. Applicant also agrees that Nabas generates hydroxyl radicals. Those radicals are the activated species at issue.
Applicant characterizes Nabas's plasma disclosure as a mere background "for reference" aside and argues that a "plasma reactor" requires electrical-discharge structure absent from Nabas. This improperly imports limitations from the specification into the claims. MPEP § 2111.01. The claims recite "a plasma reactor" without reciting any discharge electrode, ionization power supply, or discharge geometry. Nabas attributes the "plasma status" descriptor to the very OH radicals its device generates and mixes into the treated water—not to some unrelated species—and therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Nabas's generator meets the claimed "plasma reactor" producing "plasma activated excited gas." Applicant's own remarks concede that Nabas generates hydroxyl radicals; Applicant cannot simultaneously concede radical generation and deny that Nabas produces the activated species the claim requires. The examiner respectfully notes - incorporating these structural components would be better way to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues that Nabas does not disclose a plasma reactor configured to promote liquid-phase reaction of the PFAS with the encapsulated plasma activated excited gas at the air-water interface of the nanobubbles.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim. The phrase “configured to promote liquid-phase reaction … at the air-water interface” is functional. If the prior art structure can perform the function, the limitation is met. Applicant has the burden to show that the Nabas device cannot do so. See MPEP § 2114; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Nabas discloses a pump with rotating and fixed blades, an air supply that feeds air, oxygen, or ozone, and generation of nanobubbles that carry the gas and the OH radical in the treated water. See Nabas at [0022], [0051], [0052], and [0059]–[0060]. Applicant has not shown that this structure cannot support the recited reaction. The PFAS interface point is also taught by Evoqua, as discussed below.
Applicant argues that the Nabas impeller system is unsuited for PFAS and would not work to degrade PFAS without substantial modification.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. This is attorney argument. No declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 and no data were filed. Statements about radical lifetime and reaction rates, without evidence, are given little weight. See MPEP § 2145. The argument is also inconsistent with Evoqua. Evoqua states that C–F bonds are very hard to break, but still teaches that PFAS can be destroyed by advanced oxidation and by plasma treatment, and that plasma destruction of PFAS is shown in the literature. See Evoqua at [0023], [0032], [0054], and [0099]. That teaching supports a reasonable expectation of success. No change to the Nabas hardware is required. Nabas already treats various sewages and water from lakes, streams, homes, or factories. See Nabas at [0052] and [0082]. Using that device on PFAS water only requires knowing, from Evoqua, that PFAS can be treated by oxidation or plasma. The references do not have to be physically combined. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that Nabas is limited to eutrophication and pond or wetland treatment, and is only concerned with dissolved oxygen, algae, and odor.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. The pond examples in Nabas do not limit the reference. Nabas also states that the generator can be used for sanitation, deodorization, and cleaning, and that it treats various sewages from lakes, streams, homes, or factories. See Nabas at [0051] and [0082]. Nabas further states that the OH radical reacts with almost every pollutant in air and water. See Nabas at [0051]. Nabas does not criticize or discourage treatment of other organics. There is no teaching away. See MPEP § 2145. The “almost every pollutant” statement supports using the device on additional contaminants, which is the reason given in the rejection.
Applicant argues that Nabas radicals come from short-lived cavitation in bulk liquid, last only microseconds, recombine quickly, and that the system runs at ambient temperature with no thermal cracking, so it cannot mineralize PFAS.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1 and 13 do not require a radical lifetime, a bubble lifetime, a reaction temperature, thermal cracking, or conversion of PFAS to fluoride and CO2. Features that are not in the claims cannot set the claims apart from the art. See MPEP § 2145; In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344 (CCPA 1982). The remarks point to specification pages 6 and 7, which confirms these points are in the written description, not in the claims. The statements about microsecond lifetimes are also unsupported. To the extent Applicant is arguing that the combination would not work, Evoqua already teaches that plasma and other AOP methods destroy PFAS. See Evoqua at [0023], [0032], and [0099].
Applicant argues that Nabas does not encapsulate plasma-activated gas in nanobubbles, and that its bubbles are only nucleation sites or oxygen and ozone carriers and are not made to concentrate reactive species at the air-water interface for PFAS.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Nabas mixes air, oxygen, or ozone into nanobubbles in the water and generates OH radical in a plasma status in the same operation. See Nabas at [0051] and [0060]. That is encapsulation of the process gas in the nanobubbles. Applicant’s reading that the bubbles are “only” carriers is narrower than what Nabas discloses.
As to the interface, Evoqua teaches that gas bubbles in PFAS water form an air-water interface, that PFAS adsorb to those bubbles and form a surface layer enriched in PFAS, and that the bubbles may be made from an oxidizing gas such as ozone. See Evoqua at [0077]. PFAS moving to a bubble surface is a known property of PFAS in a bubble system. It does not require special design. See MPEP § 2112.
Taken together, Nabas supplies nanobubbles that carry ozone or oxygen and plasma-status OH radical, and Evoqua supplies PFAS that collect at the bubble interface. The combination therefore teaches reaction of PFAS with the gas inside the nanobubbles at the air-water interface.
Applicant argues that Evoqua and the other secondary references do not cure the gaps in Nabas, and that the dependent claims are patentable for the same reasons.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Nabas teaches the generator, the plasma-status gas, and the nanobubbles. See Nabas at [0051] and [0060]. Evoqua teaches treating PFAS with plasma or other AOP, concentrating PFAS before destruction, and PFAS collection at bubble surfaces. See Evoqua at [0011]–[0012], [0023], [0048], and [0077]. Applicant did not present a separate argument for any dependent claim. The dependent claims fall with claims 1 and 13. See MPEP § 2143.
As to the ranges, Nabas already makes nano bubbles smaller than 5 micron and treats bubble size and quality as variables that affect the dissolved rate. Nabas establishes bubble size and bubble quality/quantity as result-effective variables governing the "dissolved rate," refining bubbles to "nano size under 5 micron" to increase dissolved rate see Nabas, [0067]) and repeatedly seeking to generate "more perfect"/"more complete" nano bubbles [0037], [0057], [0062]). Optimizing a recognized result-effective variable to a workable range is not inventive absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, which Applicant has not provided. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977); MPEP § 2144.05.
The independent claims were argued only. The amendments to claims 4–6, 12, 16, and 24 were made to address the § 112(b) rejection, which is withdrawn, and they do not change the § 103 rejection. Should the applicant require clarification, the examiner welcomes an interview to further advance the case.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
