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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8, 16, 17, 24 and 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 is depending from cancelled claim 4-5. For examining purposes claim 8 is interpreted as being dependent from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17 and 24 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 16 and 17. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 17 and 24 not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the gas" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-11, 13-18, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pancras et al. (US 9,814,919) in view of Donecker et al. (WO 94/14503).
With regards to claim 1 and 24, Pancras et al. discloses a known method for remediating PFAS contaminated soil, wherein soil comprises bulk natural inorganic matter, bulk natural organic matter, solid material, porous material, concrete, asphalt and granular activated carbon, or a combination thereof; and or rock, gravel, sand, clay , stone, sediment, trees, plants, or humus (col. 6, lines 42-46). Pancras et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Pancras is silent about disposing PFAS-contaminated soil into a ball mill; adding at least one drying agent to the ball mill or exposing the ball mill to air, and operating the ball mill until a hydration level of the PFAS-contaminated soil is in a selected range; disposing a plurality of milling balls in the ball mill; and operating the ball mill until a specified PFAS contamination target level is achieved. Donecker et al. teaches a method of treating toxic materials, the method comprising disposing contaminated material into a ball mill (page 5, lines 24-31; page 6, lines 19-27); adding at least one drying agent to the ball mill or exposing the ball mill to air (page 6, lines 10-11), and operating the ball mill until a hydration level of the PFAS-contaminated soil is in a selected range; disposing a plurality of milling balls in the ball mill; and operating the ball mill until a specified PFAS contamination target level is achieved (page 24, lines 20-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Pancras et al. for the alternative method to treat contaminated material as taught by Donecker et al., since it would simply substitute for a known method for the same purpose of treating contaminated material.
As to claim 3, Pancras et al. as modified above discloses wherein the ball mill can be any commercially available ball mill (page 6, lines 28-37). Pancras et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Pancras does not explicitly disclose wherein the ball mill is a horizontal ball mill or a long roll ball mill. It would have been within the level of one skilled in the art to substitute known ball mills for known specific types of ball mills such as horizontal and long ball mills, since it is within the level of one skilled in the art to choose a known type of ball mill depending on its suitability.
As to claims 6-7, Pancras et al. as modified further discloses above discloses further comprising continuously disposing a gas into the ball mill while the ball mill is operating; wherein the gas is air, argon, nitrogen, helium, or a combination of two or more thereof (Donecker col. 6, lines 1-6; page 9, line 37 “argon filled glove box”).
As to claim 8, Pancras et al. as modified above discloses wherein the disposing a plurality of milling balls occurs when the PFAS-contaminated soil has attained a selected hydration level (col. 6, lines 1-14; suitable reagents (e.g. drying additive such as lime) are used to promote reactivity during mechanical activation, therefore, hydration level is one of many parameters controlled depending on the material and reaction level when exposed to a ball mill).
As to claim 9-11 and 23, Pancras as modified above discloses further comprising disposing at least one milling additive in the ball mill (Donecker page 6, lines 1-14); wherein the milling additive comprises a co-milling agent, a drying additive, or a combination of two more thereof; wherein the co-milling agent comprises potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, calcium oxide, silicon dioxide, sand, granite, quartz porphyries, feldspar, talc, aluminum oxide, KOH, NaOH, SiO2, porphyries, or a combination of two or more thereof (Donecker page 6, line 10-14).
As to claim 13, Pancras et al. as modified above further discloses wherein the drying additive comprises sodium hydroxide (Donecker col. 6, lines 10-14).
As to claim 14, Pancras et al. as modified above is silent about wherein the co-milling agent is added in a ratio of co- milling agent to PFAS-contaminated soil of about 0:1 to about 1:1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a co-milling agent added at a ratio of co-milling agent to PFAS contaminated soil of about 0:1 to about 1:1, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 15, Pancras as modified above discloses wherein the milling balls are added in a mass ratio of milling balls to PFAS-contaminated soil of about 20:1 (page 8, line 19).
As to claim 16-17, Pancras teaches wherein the PFAS contaminated soil comprises similar PFAS species (abstract). Pancras is silent about wherein the PFAS-contaminated soil comprises specifically perfluoroalkyl substances or polyfluoroalkyl substances. It would have been within the level of one skilled in the art to choose a different type of known halogenated organic compounds as claimed and treat them with the same method as taught above and since it would result in the same decontamination of a PFAS contaminated soil.
As to clam 18, Pancras et al. discloses wherein PFAS- contaminated soil comprises perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid(PFOA) (see abstract), perfluorooctanesulfonamide (PFOSA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA), pentafluorobenzoic acid (PFBzA), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), prefluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA), fluorotelomer, or any combination thereof (col. 1, lines 38 to col. 2, line 9).
As to claim 22-23, Pancras et al. as modified above discloses wherein the remediation is conducted in the absence of a hydroxide base; or wherein the remediation is conducted in the presence of a hydroxide base selected from KOH, NaOH, or a combination thereof (Donecker page 6, line 1-6).
As to claim 25, Pancras et al. as modified above discloses wherein a gas is heated (Donecker page 9, lines 11-15).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pancras et al. (US 9,814,919) in view of Donecker et al. (WO 94/14503) and Ball (US 2018/0319685).
As to claim 19, Pancras et al. is silent about wherein the fluorotelomer comprises 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (FTS). Ball et al. teaches the method of treating PFAS contaminated soil comprising fluorotelomer sulfonate (Table 3, page10}. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to achieve the subject matter of claim 19, by incorporating the PFAS contaminated soil comprising fluorotelomer, and it would have been further obvious to a person skill in the art to achieve a ratio 6:2 for the fluorotelomer sulfonate (FTS) as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It would therefore have been obvious to a person skilled in the art of soil remediation to incorporate the method of treating fluorotelomer contaminated soil of Ball et al. into the method of remediation as taught by Pancras as modified, since it would provide a method capable of treating multiple contaminated soil.
As to claim 20-21, Pancras teaches a PFAS contaminated soil. Pancras et al. as modified above is silent about wherein the PFAS- contaminated soil comprises PFAS in a range of about 0.5 ppm to about 40 ppm; and wherein the PFAS-contaminated soil comprises PFAS in an amount that is about 5 ppm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a PFAS contaminated soil comprising PFAS in a range of about 0.5ppm to about 40 ppm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678