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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claim 1 recites “electron and surfactant solution” in line 8. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “electron donor and surfactant solution” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
(ii) Claim 1 recites “advanced reduction processes” in line 10. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “advanced reduction process” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
(iii) Claim 1 recites “continuously emitting UV light transmission” in line 16. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “continuously emitting UV light.”
(iv) Claim 8 recites “to configured to reduce PFAS is degraded by 90%” in lines 1-2. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “configured to reduce PFAS concentration by 90% prior to discharge.”
(v) Claim 10 recites “to achieve a desired discharge concentration of 90% PFAS degradation.” in lines 2-3. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “to achieve a discharge concentration corresponding to 90% PFAS degradation.”
(v) Claim 20 recites “for least 3 doses” in line 4. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “for at least 3 doses”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 20 recites “the contaminant” in line 4, is indefinite since lacks an antecedent basis.
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 2-4, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Xiong et al., (US 2022/0371920 A1, hereinafter as “Xiong”) in view of Li et al., (US 2022/0401777 A1, hereinafter as “Li”) and Sitkiewitz et al., (US 8,652,336 B2 hereinafter as “Sitkiewitz”), and further evidenced by Bentel et al., (Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management, ES&T, 2019, 53, pp. 3718-3728, hereinafter as “Bentel”) and Pagano et al., (Oxidation of non-ionic surfactant by Fenton and H2O2/UV processes, Environmental Technology, 2008, vol. 29, pp. 423-433, hereinafter as “Pagano”).
Regarding claim 1, Xiong teaches systems and method for degrading per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) using hydrated electrons generated in an IV/sulfite system which may be used to remediate wastewater by destroying PFAS (Abstract). Xiong discloses a PFAS-treatment system having a UV reactor tank receiving PFAS contaminated liquid, oxidizing agent, and sodium-sulfite reducing agent (¶¶ [0007, 0014]). Xiong discloses a reactor system for treating a contaminated material comprising:
(a) a UV reactor tank receiving PFAS wastewater containing co-contaminants and organic matter, which may be used to remediate wastewater by destroying PFAS (¶ [0016]) (a reaction vessel configured for reacting a contaminated material, wherein the contaminated material includes per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) and organic material);
(b) a UV source applying light inside the UV reactor tank at selectable 10-400 nm wavelengths and 10-2500 W (¶ [0014, 0016]) (an ultraviolet (UV) light source within the reaction vessel, configured to emit UV light at a controllable wavelength and strength);
(c) sodium sulfite irradiated by UV to produce hydrated electrons that cleave PFAS C-F (carbon-fluorine) bond and cause PFAS degradation and defluorination (¶ [0039, 0044]) (an electron donor configured to be added to the reaction vessel, wherein the electron is configured to combine with UV light emitted from the UV light source to degrade PFAS into fluoride ions via a photoactivated advanced reduction processes (UV-ARP); and
(d) hydrogen peroxide, persulfate, or ozone delivered from an oxidant tank to the UV reactor for oxidation before or after UV/sulfite treatment ((¶ [0018, 0039]) (an oxidant solution configured to be added to the reaction vessel); irradiating during UV/sulfite treatment and using combined or alternative oxidation and reduction until near complete PFAS defluorinated is obtained (¶ [0039]) (wherein the UV light source is configured to be activated and continuously emitting UV light transmission to degrade organic material until a desired reduction of surfactant concentration and reduction of PFAS concentration are achieved).
But Xiong does not disclose: (I) an electron donor and surfactant solution configured to be added to the reaction vessel, wherein the electron and surfactant solution is configured to combine with UV light emitted from the UV light source to degrade PFAS into fluoride ions and simple carbon compounds; (II) an oxidant solution configured to be added to the reaction vessel at a preset dosage and at a sufficient concentration to degrade additional contaminants via an UV advanced oxidation process (UV-AOP); (III) UV-AOP treatment of the limitation, “wherein the UV light source is configured to be activated and continuously emitting UV light transmission to degrade the surfactant and organic material until a desired reduction of surfactant concentration and reduction of PFAS concentration are achieved.”
Regarding (I), Li teaches a PFAS nano-reactor comprising micelles formed from amphiphilic, including cationic gemini, surfactants and an electron not incorporated into the micellar subaqueous region (Abstract; (¶¶ [0056-0057]). Li discloses adding micelles and electron donor to PFAS-contaminated water, directing UV to the electron donor, releasing hydrated electrons, reductively defluorinating PFAS and releasing fluoride ions (¶¶ [0056-0058]). Bentel evidences that hydrated-electron treatment produces progressive PFAS transformation, C-F cleavage, fluoride release, and shorted or partially defluorinated carbon-containing products (i.e., “simple carbon compounds”) (Abstract; p. 3722, left column, lines 11-26).
Regarding (II), Sitkiewitz teaches a UV-activated oxidation system (100, Fig. 1A) comprising chemical reactor vessel (120, Fig. 1A), persulfate tank (150, Fig. 1A) and inlet (160 Fig. 1A), feed pump (170, Fig. 1A), and internal UV lamps (180, Fig. 1A) and (190, Fig. 1A) and mixer (200, Fig. 1A); persulfate is mixed with contaminated water and exposed to UV for a pre-determined residence time, and the persulfate -feed rate is adjusted from influent or effluent total organic carbon (TOC) measurements exposing the aqueous persulfate and contaminated water mixture to internal UV lamps to oxidize and reduce total organic matter (col. 2, line 56 thru col. 3, line5; col. 4, lines 42-59) (an oxidant solution configured to be added to the reaction vessel at a preset dosage and at a sufficient concentration, to degrade additional contaminants via an UV advanced oxidation process (UV-AOP);
Regarding (III), Sitkiewitz discloses exposing the mixture to UV for a predetermined residence time and using measured effluent TOC to adjust persulfate feed until treated-water TOC below the desired level (col. 3, lines 13-19; col 7, lines 3-23). Pagano evidences that residual surfactants are susceptible to UV/peroxide oxidation and can be substantially removed by selecting appropriate oxidant dose and irradiation conditions (Abstract).
Xiong, Li, and Sitkiewitz are analogous arts because they are in the same field of photochemical water treatment or are reasonably pertinent to the claimed problem of integrating UV-assisted PFAS reduction and UV-assisted oxidation. Xiong and Li teach UV-generated hydrated-electron PFAS degradation while Sitkiewitz teaches UV-activated oxidant treatment and controlled oxidation of residual organic contaminants in a UV reactor.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Xiong’s reduction UV treatment with Li’s electron-donor containing surfactant micelles to provide the feature “an electron donor and surfactant solution configured to be added to the reaction vessel, wherein the electron and surfactant solution is configured to combine with UV light emitted from the UV light source to degrade PFAS into fluoride ions and simple carbon compounds” because the micellar association brings PFAS and the electron donor into a confined aqueous reaction environment and lengthens hydrated-electron availability, thereby improve reduction PFAS defluorination (Li: ¶ [0007]); it would have been further obvious to perform modified Xiong’s oxidation operation using Sitkiewitz’s internally irradiated, controlled persulfate UV-AOP to provide the features “an oxidant solution configured to be added to the reaction vessel at a preset dosage and at a sufficient concentration to degrade additional contaminants via an UV advanced oxidation process (UV-AOP)” and “UV-AOP treatment of the limitation, “wherein the UV light source is configured to be activated and continuously emitting UV light transmission to degrade the surfactant and organic material until a desired reduction of surfactant concentration and reduction of PFAS concentration are achieved” because UV activation of persulfate with controlled feed predictably reduces organic carbon to a measurable endpoint and facilitate water treatment for re-use (Sitkiewitz: col. 1, lines 38-49).
In regard to claim 2, Xiong teaches oxidation pretreatment before UV/sulfite reduction post-treatment after UV/sulfite reduction (UV-AOP before UV-ARP or UV ARP before UV-AOP), and alternate oxidation/reduction cycles (¶¶ [0039, 0044]). Sitkiewitz further discloses the UV activated oxidation process for reducing carbon in water, generally denominated AOP (col. 2, lines 57-65).
In regard to claim 3, Xiong teaches a common UV reactor receiving both oxidant or reductant and repeating pre-treatment/treatment or treatment/post-treatment 1 or more times (¶ [0060]).
In regard to claims 4, Xiong teaches hydrogen peroxide, persulfate, ozone, or combinations thereof (¶ [0007]).
In regard to claims 8, Xiong teaches parent-compound decay, less than about 10% remaining C-F bonds, and near complete defluorination (operation to at least 90% PFAS degradation endpoint) (¶ [0044]).
In regard to claims 9, Li teaches an amphiphilic surfactant having hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions (ahead and tail structure) (¶¶ [0065-0066]) while Sitkiewitz disclose a UV-AOP oxidation of carbon containing compounds to CO2 and mineral salts and treatment to a selected low-TOC endpoint (col. 1, line 63 thru col. 2, line 3) (under broad reasonable interpretation, the modified combination of Xiong, in view of Li and Sitkiewitz, this could be interpreted as the degradation of the surfactant’s head/tail organic structure sufficiently for treated water discharge or reuse). Bentel further evidences PFASs have been applied in complicated mixtures including various surfactants most of which contain fluorocarbon moiety with variable lengths and head groups connecting to highly diverse organic moieties (Fig. 1), where the UV-generated hydrated-electron treatment produces progressive PFAS transformation, C-F cleavage, fluoride release, and shorted or partially defluorinated carbon-containing products (i.e., “simple carbon compounds”) (Abstract; p. 3719, lines 4-12; p. 3722, left column, lines 11-26), including a cleavage of the head groups (p. 3725, right column, second paragraph lines 1-12).
In regard to claims 10, Xiong teaches separate oxidant/reductant tanks, sensors, valves and control system (controllable reagent feeds) (¶¶ [0048-0049]). Li teaches an amphiphilic surfactant having hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions (ahead and tail structure) (¶¶ [0065-0066]). Sitkiewitz teaches automatic feedback/feed forward adjustment of oxidant feed rate controlled by a total organic carbon (TOC) analyzer (col. 6, line 52 thru col. 7, line 2) (automated, preset, and/or programmable dosing to a preset endpoint). It would have been obvious to apply the automated meter control taught by Sitkiewitz to Li’s liquid donor/surfactant feed because reagent/oxidant concentration affects treatment performance and automation provides improve reagent utilization (Sitkiewitz: col. 2, lines 8-12).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Xiong in view of Li and Sitkiewitz, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mounteer et al., (Removing textile mill effluent recalcitrant COD and toxicity using the H2O2/UV system, Water Science & Technology, 2009, 60.7, pp. 1895-1902, hereinafter as “Mounteer”).
Regarding claim 5, Xiong in view of Li and Sitkiewitz, does not teach oxidant solution is configured to be provided at a weight to volume (w/v) concentration between 30-35%.
However, Mounteer teaches peroxide/UV treatment of organic contaminants wastewater using a concentrated peroxide stock and establishes peroxide dosage and irradiation time as treatment performance variables. Mounteer discloses a 30% w/v peroxide stock solution used for peroxide/UV treatment (p. 1897, H2O2/UV treatment section, lines 9-11). Since the claimed oxidant solution range of 30-35% w/v overlaps the peroxide oxidant solution with 30% w/v taught by Mounteer, the range recited in claim 5 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Xiong, Li, Sitkiewitz, and Mounteer are analogous arts because they are in the same field of photochemical water treatment or are reasonably pertinent to the claimed problem of integrating UV-assisted PFAS reduction and UV-assisted oxidation.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to use Mounteer’s stock as Xiong’s hydrogen peroxide oxidant because the hydrogen peroxide is identified as suitable for metered deliver into a wastewater process for increasing reaction time while improving toxicity removal efficiencies and overall AOP treatment efficiency (Mounteer: p. 1901, Conclusion section, lines 1-13).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Xiong in view of Li, Sitkiewitz, and Mounteer as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yost et al., (US 2020/0399147 A1, hereinafter as “Yost”).
Regarding claim 6, Mounteer teaches oxidant solution is configured to be provided at a weight to volume (w/v) concentration between 30 (p. 1897, H2O2/UV treatment section, lines 9-11).
But Xiong in view of Li and Sitkiewitz, Mounteer, does not teach oxidant solution is configured to be dosed into the reaction vessel at increments of time between 10 and 15 minutes.
However, Yost teaches PFAs treatment using supplemental hydrogen peroxide added during the treatment run: Example 4, regiment P-3, adds 15 ml hydrogen peroxide at T=0 minutes and 15 ml at T=10 minutes (¶ [0162]). Since the claimed dosing into the reaction vessel at increments of time between 10 and 15 minutes overlaps the oxidant solution dosing every after 10 minutes taught by Yost, the range recited in claim 6 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Xiong, Li, Sitkiewitz., and Mounteer and Yost are analogous arts because each is directed to photochemical or chemically assisted treatment of contaminated water and is either in the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent tot eh claimed problem of integrating UV-asited PFAS reduction with US-assisted oxidation and controlled oxidant delivery.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to use Yost’s dosing incremental oxidant solution timing in the modified Xiong’s process because incremental dosing of hydrogen peroxide provides additional replenishment of oxidant when exhausted which provides sustained oxidative capacity without excessive initial charge (Yost: ¶ [0126]).
In regard to claim 7, Yost teaches adding 30 ml of hydrogen peroxide solution to 2.5 gallons of PFAS-containing water (converting 2.5 gallon to 9,463.5 ml gives an oxidant loading (30 ml/9,463.5 ml) x 100 = approximately 0.371% v/v (¶¶ (0159, 0162]). Yost further discloses Yost teaches PFAs treatment using supplemental hydrogen peroxide added during the treatment run: Example 4, regiment P-3, adds 15 ml hydrogen peroxide at T=0 minutes and 15 ml at T=10 minutes (¶ [0162]) and Xiong teaches three or more repeated oxidation/reduction events (¶ [0064]). Since the claimed dosing aliquots into the reaction vessel of 0.3-3.3% v/v and the incremental dosing every 10-15 minutes of the contaminated material overlaps the oxidant dosing aliquots of 0.317 v/v and incremental dosing every 10 minutes taught by Yost, and the claimed at least 3 doses overlaps the one to more dosing events taught by Xiong, the ranges recited in claim 7 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 11, 12-14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Xiong in view of Li and Sitkiewitz.
Regarding claim 11, Xiong teaches systems and method for degrading per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) using hydrated electrons generated in an IV/sulfite system which may be used to remediate wastewater by destroying PFAS (Abstract). Xiong discloses a PFAS-treatment method having a UV reactor tank receiving PFAS contaminated liquid, oxidizing agent, and sodium-sulfite reducing agent (¶¶ [0007, 0014]). Xiong discloses a process for treating a contaminated material comprising:
(a) adding sodium sulfite reducing agent to a UV reactor tank receiving wastewater containing PFAS, co-contaminants, solvent, and organic matter (¶¶ [0039, 0044]) (adding an electron donor to PFAS-containing contaminated material);
(b) applying UV light inside a reactor tank, using a source having selectable 10-400 nm and 10-400 nm wavelengths and 10-2500 wattage (¶¶ [0014, 0016]) (activating an ultraviolet (UV) light source within the reaction vessel, configured to emit UV light at a controllable wavelength and strength;);
(c) irradiating sodium sulfite by UV to produce hydrated electrons that cleave PFAS C-F bond and cause PFAS degradation and defluorination (¶¶ [0039, 0044]) (degrading the PFAS and organic material into fluoride ions and carbon compounds by reacting with the electron with the UV light emitted from the UV light source via a photoactivated advanced reduction processes (UV-ARP); and
(d) adding hydrogen peroxide, persulfate, or ozone, or combinations thereof before or after UV/sulfite treatment to remove organic matter and further cleave remaining C-F bonds (¶¶ [0018, 0039]) (adding an oxidant solution to the reaction vessel to degrade additional contaminants via an UV advanced oxidation process (UV-AOP);
(e) irradiating during UV/sulfite treatment and using combined or alternative oxidation and reduction until near complete PFAS defluorinated is obtained (¶ [0039]) (degrading organic material until a desired reduction of surfactant concentration and reduction of PFAS concentration are achieved).
But Xiong does not disclose: (I) adding surfactant solution to a reaction vessel for reacting a contaminated material within the reaction vessel; (II) degrading the PFAS and organic material into fluoride ions and carbon compounds by reacting with the electron and surfactant solution and combined with the UV light; (III) adding an oxidant solution to the reaction vessel at a preset dosage and at a sufficient concentration to degrade additional contaminants and surfactant via an UV advanced oxidation process (UV-AOP); (IV) degrading the surfactant and organic material until a desired reduction of surfactant concentration and reduction of PFAS concentration are achieved.
Regarding (I), Li teaches adding sulfite to PFAS contaminant liquid in a UV reactor and discloses adding cationic gemini surfactants to PFAS-containing water and then adding electron donor to the water in a reactor containing the micelles.
Regarding (II), Li discloses directing UV radiation to an electron donor within surfactant micelles thereby releasing hydrated electrons that contact PFAS molecules, reductively defluorinated the PFAS, and release fluoride ions. Bentel evidences that hydrated-electron treatment produces progressive PFAS transformation, C-F cleavage, fluoride release, and shorted or partially defluorinated carbon-containing products (i.e., “simple carbon compounds”)
Regarding (III), Sitkiewitz teaches a UV-activated oxidation system (100, Fig. 1A) comprising chemical reactor vessel (120, Fig. 1A), persulfate tank (150, Fig. 1A) and inlet (160 Fig. 1A), feed pump (170, Fig. 1A), and internal UV lamps (180, Fig. 1A) and (190, Fig. 1A) and mixer (200, Fig. 1A); persulfate is mixed with contaminated water and exposed to UV for a pre-determined residence time, and the persulfate -feed rate is adjusted from influent or effluent TOC measurements exposing the aqueous persulfate and contaminated water mixture to internal UV lamps to oxidize and reduce total organic matter (col. 2, line 56 thru col. 3, line5; col. 4, lines 42-59).
Regarding (IV), Sitkiewitz discloses continuing UV/persulfate treatment and controlling persulfate and controlling persulfate feed according to effluent total organic carbon (TOC) until the required organic carbon (organic material) decomposition performance is obtained (col. 3, lines 13-19; col 7, lines 3-23). Pagano evidences that residual surfactants are susceptible to UV/peroxide oxidation and can be substantially removed by selecting appropriate oxidant dose and irradiation conditions (Abstract).
Xiong, Li, Sitkiewitz are analogous arts because they are in the same field of photochemical water treatment or are reasonably pertinent to the claimed problem of integrating UV-assisted PFAS reduction and UV-assisted oxidation. Xiong and Li teach UV-generated hydrated-electron PFAS degradation while Sitkiewitz teaches UV-activated oxidant treatment and controlled oxidation of residual organic contaminants in a UV reactor.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Xiong’s treatment process using Li’s electron-donor containing surfactant micelles to provide the feature “ adding surfactant solution to a reaction vessel for reacting a contaminated material within the reaction vessel” and “degrading the PFAS and organic material into fluoride ions and carbon compounds by reacting with the electron and surfactant solution and combined with the UV light” because micelles associates PFAS and electron donor and stabilized hydrated electrons, thereby promoting improved PFAS defluorination (Li: ¶ [0007]); it would have been further obvious to perform modified Xiong’s treatment process using Sitkiewitz’s controlled UV/persulfate oxidation to provide the features “adding an oxidant solution to the reaction vessel at a preset dosage and at a sufficient concentration to degrade additional contaminants and surfactant via an UV advanced oxidation process (UV-AOP)” and “degrading the surfactant and organic material until a desired reduction of surfactant concentration and reduction of PFAS concentration are achieved” because UV activated persulfate with controlled dosing predictably removed residual organic carbon to a selected desired endpoint and facilitate water treatment for re-use (Sitkiewitz: col. 1, lines 38-49).
In regard to claim 12, Xiong teaches oxidation pretreatment before UV/sulfite reduction post-treatment after UV/sulfite reduction (UV-AOP before UV-ARP or UV ARP before UV-AOP), and alternate oxidation/reduction cycles (¶¶ [0039, 0044]). Sitkiewitz further discloses the UV activated oxidation process for reducing carbon in water, generally denominated AOP (col. 2, lines 57-65).
In regard to claim 13, Xiong teaches a common UV reactor receiving both oxidant or reductant and repeating pre-treatment/treatment or treatment/post-treatment 1 or more times (¶ [0060]).
In regard to claims 14, Xiong teaches hydrogen peroxide, persulfate, ozone, or combinations thereof (¶ [0007]).
In regard to claims 18, Xiong teaches parent-compound decay, less than about 10% remaining C-F bonds, and near complete defluorination (operation to at least 90% PFAS degradation endpoint) (¶ [0044]).
In regard to claims 19, Li teaches an amphiphilic surfactant having hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions (ahead and tail structure) (¶¶ [0065-0066]) while Sitkiewitz disclose a UV-AOP oxidation of carbon containing compounds to CO2 and mineral salts and treatment to a selected low-TOC endpoint (col. 1, line 63 thru col. 2, line 3) (under broad reasonable interpretation, the modified combination of Xiong, in view of Li and Sitkiewitz, this could be interpreted as the degradation of the surfactant’s head/tail organic structure sufficiently for treated water discharge or reuse). Bentel further evidences PFASs have been applied in complicated mixtures including various surfactants most of which contain fluorocarbon moiety with variable lengths and head groups connecting to highly diverse organic moieties (Fig. 1), where the UV-generated hydrated-electron treatment produces progressive PFAS transformation, C-F cleavage, fluoride release, and shorted or partially defluorinated carbon-containing products (i.e., “simple carbon compounds”) (Abstract; p. 3719, lines 4-12; p. 3722, left column, lines 11-26), including a cleavage of the head groups (p. 3725, right column, second paragraph lines 1-12).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Xiong in view of Li and Sitkiewitz, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Mounteer et al., (Removing textile mill effluent recalcitrant COD and toxicity using the H2O2/UV system, Water Science & Technology, 2009, 60.7, pp. 1895-1902, hereinafter as “Mounteer”).
Regarding claim 15, Xiong in view of Li and Sitkiewitz, does not teach oxidant solution is configured to be provided at a weight to volume (w/v) concentration between 30-35%.
However, Mounteer teaches peroxide/UV treatment of organic contaminants wastewater using a concentrated peroxide stock and establishes peroxide dosage and irradiation time as treatment performance variables. Mounteer discloses a 30% w/v peroxide stock solution used for peroxide/UV treatment (p. 1897, H2O2/UV treatment section, lines 9-11). Since the claimed oxidant solution range of 30-35% w/v overlaps the peroxide oxidant solution with 30% w/v taught by Mounteer, the range recited in claim 5 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Xiong, Li, Sitkiewitz., and Mounteer are analogous arts because they are in the same field of photochemical water treatment or are reasonably pertinent to the claimed problem of integrating UV-assisted PFAS reduction and UV-assisted oxidation.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to use Mounteer’s stock as Xiong’s hydrogen peroxide oxidant because the hydrogen peroxide is identified as suitable for metered deliver into a wastewater process for increasing reaction time while improving toxicity removal efficiencies and overall AOP treatment efficiency (Mounteer: p. 1901, Conclusion section, lines 1-13).
Claims 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Xiong in view of Li and Sitkiewitz, Mounteer as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Yost et al., (US 2020/0399147 A1, hereinafter as “Yost”).
Regarding claim 16, Mounteer teaches oxidant solution is configured to be provided at a weight to volume (w/v) concentration between 30 (p. 1897, H2O2/UV treatment section, lines 9-11).
But Xiong in view of Li and Sitkiewitz, Mounteer, does not teach oxidant solution is configured to be dosed into the reaction vessel at increments of time between 10 and 15 minutes.
However, Yost teaches PFAs treatment using supplemental hydrogen peroxide added during the treatment run: Example 4, regiment P-3, adds 15 ml hydrogen peroxide at T=0 minutes and 15 ml at T=10 minutes (¶ [0162]). Since the claimed dosing into the reaction vessel at increments of time between 10 and 15 minutes overlaps the oxidant solution dosing every after 10 minutes taught by Yost, the range recited in claim 16 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Xiong, Li, Sitkiewitz., and Mounteer and Yost are analogous arts because each is directed to photochemical or chemically assisted treatment of contaminated water and is either in the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent tot eh claimed problem of integrating UV-assisted PFAS reduction with US-assisted oxidation and controlled oxidant delivery.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to use Yost’s dosing incremental oxidant solution timing in the modified Xiong’s process because incremental dosing of hydrogen peroxide provides additional replenishment of oxidant when exhausted which provides sustained oxidative capacity without excessive initial charge (Yost: (¶ [0126]).
In regard to claim 17, Yost teaches adding 30 ml of hydrogen peroxide solution to 2.5 gallons of PFAS-containing water (converting 2.5 gallon to 9,463.5 ml gives an oxidant loading (30 ml/9,463.5 ml) x 100 = approximately 0.371% v/v (¶¶ (0159, 0162]). Yost further discloses Yost teaches PFAs treatment using supplemental hydrogen peroxide added during the treatment run: Example 4, regiment P-3, adds 15 ml hydrogen peroxide at T=0 minutes and 15 ml at T=10 minutes (¶ [0162]) and Xiong teaches three or more repeated oxidation/reduction events (¶ [0064]). Since the claimed dosing aliquots into the reaction vessel of 0.3-3.3% v/v and the incremental dosing every 10-15 minutes of the contaminated material overlaps the oxidant dosing aliquots of 0.317 v/v and incremental dosing every 10 minutes taught by Yost, and the claimed at least 3 doses overlaps the one to more dosing events taught by Xiong, the ranges recited in claim 17 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to claim 20, Mounteer teaches the 30% w/v hydrogen peroxide limitation (p. 1897, H2O2/UV treatment section, lines 9-11); Yost teaches hydrogen peroxide additions at T=0 and T=10 minutes (¶ [0162]); Yost further teaches total hydrogen peroxide loadings of approximately 0.317% v/v and timed division of oxidant into portions (¶¶ (0159, 0162]); Xiong discloses three or more repeated treatment events and near complete PFAS treatment (¶ [0064]);. Li discloses the surfactant/electron-donor reagent (¶¶ [0056-0058]); and Sitkiewitz supplies the controlled UV-AOP removal of residual organics (col. 2, line 56 thru col. 3, line5; col. 4, lines 42-59). It would have been obvious to incorporate Mounteer’s peroxide concentration and Yosts’s staged PFAS specific oxidant replenishment into the process of claim 16 because concentrated peroxide stock, timed oxidant replenishment, repeated treatment cycles, and controlled UV oxidation were recognized techniques for maintaining oxidant availability and improving PFAS degradation efficiency, thereby predictably achieving sustained oxidation and enhanced contaminant removal (Mounteer: p. 1901, Conclusion section, lines 1-13; Yost: (¶ [0126]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any 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 Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights