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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 15, 16, 21, 22, 26 are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0371920 (hereinafter US 920) in view of US 6423236 B1 (hereinafter US 236) and Giri, R.R., Ozaki, H., Morigaki, T., Taniguchi, S. and Takanami, R., 2011. UV photolysis of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in dilute aqueous solution. Water Science and Technology, 63(2), pp.276-282 (herein after Giri).
Regarding claim 1, US 920 discloses a method and system of degrading per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in wastewater (see US 920 abstract, paragraphs [0005]-[0020]), which is deemed method of PFAS destruction.
US 920 discloses “a method for degrading PFAS compounds, comprising: providing a liquid containing one or more PFAS compounds; subjecting the liquid to a pre-treatment, wherein the pre-treatment comprises applying UV light and/or at least one oxidizing agent to the liquid; subjecting the liquid to a treatment, wherein the treatment comprises applying UV light and a sulfite; and optionally, subjecting the liquid to a post-treatment, wherein the post-treatment comprises applying an oxidizing agent” (see US 920 paragraph [0006]; see also US 920 figures 2, 3). US 920 discloses that “the oxidizing agent applied in the pre-treatment and/or the post-treatment steps comprises hydrogen peroxide, persulfate, ozone, or a combination thereof” (see US 920 paragraph [0007]); “the pre-treatment step may further comprise adjustment of the pH and/or temperature of the influent liquid” (see US 920 paragraph [0058]) and the liquid is adjusted to a pH of approximately 9-14 with a pH control agent, such as an acid, base or buffer(see US 920 claim 5, paragraphs [0008], [0055] [0058], [0065]; see also US 920 figures 2, 3 and paragraphs [0058]), which is deemed oxidatively pretreating an aqueous foam fractionate solution including PFAS to form a pretreated solution, the step of oxidatively pretreating the aqueous foam fractionate solution comprising mixing the aqueous foam fractionate solution with a persulfate and a base to increase pH to form a modified aqueous foam fractionate solution.
US 920 discloses an oxidation pre-treatment prior to the UV treatment or pre-treatment (see UV 920 paragraphs [0007], [0011], [0039], [0044]). US 920 disclose that the oxidation pre-treatment is performed at a temperature of at least or exactly 100 (see US 920 claim 8; paragraphs [0013], [0017], [0044], [0062], [0066] (US 920 discloses “the treatment, pre-treatment, and/or post-treatment steps are each performed at a temperature of at least, at most, or exactly 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 100° C., or a temperature within a range bounded by any pair of these values” (emphasis added) (see US 920 paragraph [0013]).), which is deemed then oxidizing the modified aqueous foam fractionate solution by subjecting the modified aqueous foam fractionate solution to an increased temperature of at least 100 degrees Celsius for a period of time sufficient for thermal oxidation.
US 920 discloses an oxidation process, including temperature for oxidation and chemical components (see US 920 paragraph [0044], [0048], [0054], [0062]), but does not disclose oxidizing in a pressure vessel and an increased pressure of at least 1.5 bar.
U236 discloses a method for treating wastewater containing an organic compound having two or more carbon atoms comprising a first step of oxidizing the wastewater and then a second step of reverse osmosis (see US 236 abstract, claim 1, figures 2 & 4, col 2 lines 16-32). US 236 discloses that the wastewater may undergo a reverse osmosis step prior to the oxidation step (see US 236 col 4 lines 4-22 (US 236 discloses “e waste water may be treated with a reverse osmosis membrane before being subjected to the oxidation” (see US 236 col 4 lines 4-5).). US 236 discloses that the oxidation process occurs in a reaction tower (see US 236 col 4 lines 33-45; col 5 line 63 – col 6 line 4; col 6 lines 14-19)
US 236 discloses that the temperature of the wastewater in the reaction chamber ranges from 80oC to 270oC (see US 236 col 5 lines 21-35 & 46-62). US 236 discloses that the pressure within the reaction tower ranges from 0.2 – 1 MPa (2-10 bar) (see US 236 col 5 lines 55-62) (US 236 discloses “If the temperature of the waste water in the reaction tower 1 is higher than 95° C., and lower than 170° C., it is preferable to apply pressure about 0.2-1 MPa(Gauge) to keep its liquid phase” (see US 236 col 5 lines 44-58).).
US 236 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. wastewater treatment/purification involving an oxidation step.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 920 by incorporating the reaction tower, as disclosed in US 236, because reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. oxidation of wastewater.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 920 by incorporating the reaction tower, as disclosed in US 236, because it would assist with treatment/purification of the wastewater and/or because it would assist with performing the oxidation step, both in US 920 and US 236.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 920 by incorporating the reaction tower, as disclosed in US 236, under conditions as disclosed in US 236, which has an overlapping temperature disclosure with US 920, and US 236 provides further guidance on pressure conditions for the reaction tower, including temperature and pressure, because these conditions would assist with achieving an oxidation step and/or because these conditions would assist with degrading water contaminated with an organic compound having two or more carbon atoms, like PFAS that has a carbon chain.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the temperature and pressure conditions of the reaction tower of US 920 in view of US 236 because if the temperature and pressure are too high, then the materials within the reaction tower will be gasified and if the temperature and pressure is too high, the oxidation step will not occur. US 236 discloses that the temperature and pressure are a result-effective variable (US 236 col 5 lines 21-35 & 44-54) (US 236 discloses “If the temperature of the waste water is higher than 370° C., high pressure is needed to the waste water in order to keep it in a liquid phase” (see US 326 col 5 lines 26-28) and “If the temperature of the waste water is lower than 80° C., it is difficult to efficiently oxide and decompose the oxidizable substance in the waste water” (see US 326 col 5 lines 32-35). US 236 discloses “if the temperature of the waste water in the reaction tower 1 is higher than 80° C., and lower than 95° C., it is preferable to apply suitable pressure to the waste water for improving the efficiency of the wet-oxidation” (see US 236 col 5 lines 45-50), “If it is higher than 95° C., the waste water may turns into gas phase under atmospheric pressure and applying the enough pressure to the waste water is needed to keep its liquid phase” (see US 236 col 5 lines 51-54) and “If the temperature of the waste water in the reaction tower 1 is higher than 95° C., and lower than 170° C., it is preferable to apply pressure about 0.2-1 MPa(Gauge) to keep its liquid phase. If it is 170° C. or higher, and lower than 230° C., it is preferable to apply pressure about 1-5 MPa(Gauge) to keep its liquid phase” (see US 236 col 5 lines 55-60).). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed pressure, as well as the claimed temperature, cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed pressure, as well as the claimed temperature, in US 920 in view of US 236. It has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).) The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize pressure, as well as temperature, and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Hence, US 920 in view of US 236 is deemed to disclose a method of PFAS destruction comprising oxidatively pretreating an aqueous foam fractionate solution including PFAS to form a pretreated solution, the step of oxidatively pretreating the aqueous foam fractionate solution comprising mixing the aqueous foam fractionate solution with a persulfate and an acid to decrease pH or a base to increase pH to form a modified aqueous foam fractionate solution; then oxidizing the modified aqueous foam fractionate solution in a pressure vessel by subjecting the modified aqueous foam fractionate solution to an increased temperature of at least 100 degrees Celsius and an increased pressure of at least 1.5 bar for a period of time sufficient for thermal oxidation.
US 920 in view of US 236 discloses wastewater with amendment is then subjected to a combination of ultraviolet/sulfite treatment, such as 18 W UV-254 lamp, 10 mM sodium sulfite (see US 920 figure 4, 5, 15, abstract, paragraphs [0029], [0044]-[0045], [0058]-[0061]), which is deemed subjecting the pretreated solution to UV photolysis.
US 920 in view of US 236 does not disclose diluting the pretreated solution by at least 2 fold between the oxidatively pretreating step and the UV photolysis step.
Giri discloses a study of various PFOA in dilute aqueous solutions being degraded by UV photodegradation (see Giri title, abstract, figure 2, experimental section pages 277-278 and conclusion pages 281-282). Giri discloses “Stock solution of PFOA (1.0 g/L) was prepared in distilled deionized water (ddw) and stored in refrigerator at 10oC. The solution was used to prepare PFOA solutions of desired concentrations (1000, 500 and 50 mg/L) in ddw for photodegradation experiments” (see Giri page 277; see also Giri figure 2).
Giri is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. PFAS/PFOA removal, wastewater treatment/purification and/or UV-oxidant treatment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 920 in view of US 236 by diluting the wastewater samples, as disclosed in Giri, because diluting before UV treatment it would assist with treatment/removal of PFAS and because it would assist with the evaluation of the degradation at the end of treatment.
Hence, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri is deemed to disclose a method of PFAS destruction comprising oxidatively pretreating an aqueous foam fractionate solution including PFAS to form a pretreated solution, the step of oxidatively pretreating the aqueous foam fractionate solution comprising mixing the aqueous foam fractionate solution with a persulfate and an acid to decrease pH or a base to increase pH to form a modified aqueous foam fractionate solution; then oxidizing the modified aqueous foam fractionate solution in a pressure vessel by subjecting the modified aqueous foam fractionate solution to an increased temperature of at least 100 degrees Celsius and an increased pressure of at least 1.5 bar for a period of time sufficient for thermal oxidation; diluting the pretreated solution by at least 2 fold and subjecting the diluted pretreated solution to UV photolysis.
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 8, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri does not disclose the UV photolysis comprises directing UV light at 222 nm onto the pretreated solution, as recited in claim 2, does not disclose the UV photolysis comprises directing UV light at 254 nm onto the pretreated aqueous foam fractionate solution, as recited in claim 7 and does not disclose the UV photolysis comprises directing UV light at 185 nm onto the pretreated aqueous foam fractionate solution, as recited in claim 8.
However, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses wattage of the UV light ranges from 10-2500 W, including 100 W, 150 W, 200 W, 250 W and 300 W, and has a wavelength ranging from 10 – 400 nm, including between 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, 250, 275, 300 nm (see US 920 paragraphs [0011], [0014] and claims 9 & 18). US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses a range of UV wavelengths that includes 222 nm, 254 nm and 185 nm.
Further, it is prima facie case of obviousness to achieve an UV wavelength of includes 222 nm, 254 nm or 185 nm in US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Generally, differences in UV wavelength will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the UV wavelength and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the increased temperature comprises about 115 degrees (see rejection of claim 1; see US 920 paragraphs [0013], [0017], [0019], [0062]; see US 236 col 5 lines 23-35 & 55-62).
Further, it is prima facie case of obviousness to achieve an increased temperature between about 115 degrees Celsius in US 920 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Generally, differences in concentration, pressure and/or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the increased pressure comprises about 1 to about 5 bar.
As noted above, claim 5 is deemed indefinite. As noted above, claim 5 is understood to be “about 1.5 to about 5 bar”. Herein, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri is deemed to disclose about 1.5 to about 5 bar.
Further, it is prima facie case of obviousness to achieve a pressure of about 1/1.5 to about 5 bar in US 920 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Generally, differences in concentration, pressure and/or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pressure and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses oxidizing the aqueous foam fractionate solution comprises subjecting the aqueous foam fractionate solution to ozone oxidation (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses comprising, prior to and/or after oxidatively pretreating the aqueous foam fractionate solution, separating out solid particles from the aqueous foam fractionate solution (see US 920 paragraphs [0012], [0057] and figures 2-3; see US 236 abstract, claim 1, claim 2 lines 18-26).
Regarding claim 10, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses a method of PFAS destruction comprising mixing the aqueous foam fractionate solution with a persulfate and a base to increase the pH subjecting the aqueous foam fractionate solution to a temperature of about 100 to about 140 degrees Celsius in a pressure vessel at a pressure of at least 1.5 bar for a period of time sufficient for thermal oxidation; and subjecting the pretreated solution to UV photolysis at about 222 nm or at about 254 nm (see rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, & 5; see also US 920 paragraphs [0043], [0074]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses a base is mixed into the aqueous foam fractionate solution to increase the pH of the aqueous foam fractionate solution, as recited in claim 15, and the pH is raised to between about 10 and about 14, as recited in claim 16 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses
before subjecting the pretreated solution to UV photolysis, diluting the pretreated solution by a factor of 5 or more, as recited in claim 21 and discloses before subjecting the pretreated solution to UV photolysis, diluting the pretreated solution by a factor of up to 10 (see rejection of claim 1).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the concentration of the pretreated solution prior to UV treatment, as disclosed in US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri , either by dilution or concentration, because if the concentration of the PFAS in the pretreated solution is too great, then the effectiveness of the UV treatment will be reduced due to the inability of the UV light to reach a high concentration of PFASs, and if the concentration of the PFAS in the pretreated solution is too small, then the effectiveness of the UV treatment will be reduced due to there being too little material for the UV light to interact with. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the concentration of the PFAS in the pretreated solution US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri will affect the effectiveness of the UV treatment, i.e. adequate UV interaction and degradation.
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed concentration/dilution factor cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, concentration/dilution factor of the pretreated solution, including the PFAS and contaminants in the pretreated solution, of US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri . Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. It has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).) The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentration/dilution factor and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention, as recited in claims 21 and 22.
Regarding claim 26, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses subjecting the pretreated solution to UV photolysis comprises subjecting the pretreated solution to UV light from a low pressure mercury lamp or a medium pressure mercury lamp (see rejection of claim 1; see US 920 figure 9, paragraphs [0043], [0072], [0077]).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Lee, Y., Lo, S., Kuo, J. and Hsieh, C., 2012. Decomposition of perfluorooctanoic acid by microwave-activated persulfate: Effects of temperature, pH, and chloride ions. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 6, pp.17-25 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 10, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the method, as recited in claim 10, except US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri does not disclose mixing the aqueous foam fractionate solution with a persulfate and an acid to decrease the pH (see rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10).
Lee discloses a method of microwave-hydrothermal treatment of persistent and bioaccumulative perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in water with persulfate, such as sodium persulfate (see Lee abstract and page 18/section 2.1). Lee examines “the effects of pH (pH = 2.5, 6.6, 8.8, and 10.5), chloride concentrations (0.01–0.15 mol·L−1), and temperature (60°C, 90°C, and 130°C) on persulfate oxidation of PFOA under microwave irradiation (see Lee abstract), wherein the pressure of the system is at 15, 18, and 40 psi pressure using persulfate (see Lee page 18; (15 psi is 1.03 bar, 18 psi is 1.24 bar, and 40 psi is 2.75)).
Lee is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. PFAS/PFOA removal, wastewater treatment/purification and/or hydrothermal treatment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an acid, as disclosed in Lee, in the method and system of US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri because it would assist with the degradation of a contaminant, such as PFAS/PFOA, in a wastewater.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an acid, as disclosed in Lee, in the method and system of US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri because the combination of known elements was obvious to try. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding claim 11, US 920 in view of US 236, Giri and Lee discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, US 920 in view of US 236, Giri and Lee discloses the persulfate comprises sodium persulfate (see Lee page 18).
Regarding claim 12, US 920 in view of US 236, Giri and Lee discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 11. Further, US 920 in view of US 236, Giri and Lee discloses the persulfate is added to the aqueous foam fractionate solution to achieve a concentration of about 100 to about 200 mM in the aqueous foam fractionate solution (see US 920 paragraph [0058], [0060], [0072]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of US 20220402794 A1 (hereinafter US 794).
Regarding claim 11, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri does not disclose the persulfate comprises potassium persulfate, sodium persulfate, and/or aluminum persulfate.
US 794 discloses a water treatment system and method for degrading contaminants, such as PFAS, from wastewater (see US 794 abstract, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0006]-[0032], [0075]-[0082]). US 794 discloses “PFAS elimination stage comprises an advanced oxidation process (AOP) reactor. For example, the AOP may involve a UV-persulfate treatment or a plasma treatment” (see US 794 paragraph [0017]). US 794 discloses that with the UV-treatment “Any strong oxidant may be used. In some non-limiting embodiments, a persulfate compound may be used. In at least some embodiments, ammonium persulfate, sodium persulfate, and/or potassium persulfate may be used” (see US 794 paragraph [0075]).
US 794 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. PFAS removal, wastewater treatment/purification and/or UV-oxidant treatment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use ammonium persulfate, sodium persulfate, and/or potassium persulfate, as disclosed in US 764, as the persulfate in the method and system of US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of oxidation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use ammonium persulfate, sodium persulfate, and/or potassium persulfate, as disclosed in US 764, as the persulfate in the method and system of US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri because US 794 discloses several embodiments of a persulfate that can be used in UV-persulfate treatment to degrade PFAS in water, as disclosed in US 920.
Regarding claim 12, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri and US 794 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 11. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 and Giri and US 794 discloses the persulfate is added to the aqueous foam fractionate solution to achieve a concentration of about 100 to about 200 mM in the aqueous foam fractionate solution (see US 920 paragraph [0058], [0060], [0072]).
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 920 in view of US 236 as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of US 20210032136 A1 (hereinafter US 136).
Regarding claim 25, US 920 in view of US 236 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 discloses that the wastewater is “contaminated wastewater collected at an industrial or other site, concentrate PFAS-containing liquid that has already been partially remediated using membrane filtration or another technique, PFAS-containing liquid generated from washing or cleaning of AFFF delivery equipment, PFAS-containing liquid that are generated from other remediation processes such as soil washing and foam fractionation” (see US 920 paragraph [0057]; see also see US 920 paragraph [0012]).
US 920 in view of US 236 does not disclose the aqueous foam fractionate solution including PFAS comprises landfill leachate.
US 136 discloses a water treatment that comprises UV treatment to degrade PFAS (see US 136 abstract, title, paragraphs [0007], [0008], [0041], [0051]-[0052]). US 136 discloses “the manufacturing and use of PFAS has resulted in widespread ground and surface water contamination, particularly from releases associated with chemical plants, firefighting and fire training exercises, and landfill leachates” (see US 136 paragraph [0003]).
US 136 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. PFAS removal, wastewater treatment/purification and/or UV-oxidant treatment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the method of US 920 in view of US 236 to the wastewater, including landfill leachate, as disclosed in US 136, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable solution of providing a wastewater for treatment by the method of US 920.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the method of US 920 in view of US 236 to the wastewater, including landfill leachate, as disclosed in US 136, because it would assist with degrading PFAS/contaminant in a wastewater.
Claim(s) 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 920 in view of US 236 as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of JP 2016036772 A (hereinafter JP 772).
Regarding claims 27-28, US 920 in view of US 236 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 920 in view of US 236 does not disclose subjecting the pretreated solution to UV photolysis comprises subjecting the pretreated solution to UV light from an excimer light source, as recited in claim 26/27; and the excimer light source comprises a xenon excimer lamp or krypton/chloride excimer lamp, as recited in claim 27/28.
JP 772 discloses an ultraviolet irradiation type water purifier (see JP 772 abstract). JP 772 disclose that the UV lamp emits UV rays of at least 200 to 300 nm (see JP 772 abstract). JP 772 discloses “when a mixed gas of krypton gas and chlorine gas is used as the discharge gas, ultraviolet light having a center wavelength of 222 nm is emitted from the KrCl excimer. Further, when mercury and xenon gas are used as the discharge gas, ultraviolet light having a center wavelength of 254 nm is emitted from the HgXe excimer. Furthermore, when a mixed gas of xenon gas and bromine gas is used as the discharge gas, ultraviolet light having a center wavelength of 283 nm is emitted by the HgBr excimer” (see JP 772 page 4 of translation).
JP 772 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. wastewater treatment/purification and/or UV treatment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the UV lamp of US 920 in view of US 236 with a UV lamp, as disclosed by JP 772, such as KrCl excimer, HgXe excimer or HgBr excimer, because it would assist with the treatment/purification of the wastewater.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the UV lamp of US 920 in view of US 236 with a UV lamp, as disclosed by JP 772, such as KrCl excimer, HgXe excimer or HgBr excimer, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution of irradiating UV light.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the UV lamp of US 920 in view of US 236 with a UV lamp, as disclosed by JP 772, such as KrCl excimer, HgXe excimer or HgBr excimer, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. irradiate UV light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered.
The 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
The obviousness rejection has been maintained.
In the response, it was argued that the claimed diluting step is not rendered obvious by the cited prior art, in particular Giri (see Response pages 8-9). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
Giri provides motivation and/or reasoning for applying UV treatment to a diluted solution. Giri illustrates that diluting a solution comprising PFAS, which will necessarily affect the concentration of PFAS within said solution, has an impact on the degradation of PFAS by UV radiation. Giri discloses that the “effect of initial PFOA concentration on its photodegradation by the combined wavelengths is more distinct in terms of rate values shown in Table 1. The first-order rate values for 1000 and 500 mg/L PFOA were about 1.2 and 1.1 folds of the value for 50 mg/L, while the ratios in case of zero-order kinetic were about 26.7 and 8.7 respectively, …. the half-life period (t1/2) of PFOA increased with decreasing PFOA concentration though the difference between 1000 and 500 mg/L was small in case of the first-order reaction kinetic (emphasis added) (see Giri section Degradation kinetic/page 279).
“[t]he Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421-22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 ” (see Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 39/Tuesday, February 27, 2024/page 14450). Further, a “person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742” (see Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 39/Tuesday, February 27, 2024/page 14450). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that concentration of PFAS in solution affects the degradation by UV light. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to modify and/or dilute the pretreated solution prior to UV photolysis. Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” (see MPEP 2123, I). Thus, Giri is not limited solely to “Giri had a stock solution of a single concentration of PFOA, and wanted to experiment on different concentrations, so Giri diluted the stock solution” (see Response page 8).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773