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 .
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 is objected because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “target water” should read “a target water”
In claim 1, “Beta zeolite” should read “a beta zeolite”
In claim 1, “the selected beta zeolite” should read “a selected beta zeolite”
In claim 4 and 7, “the calcined beta zeolite” should read “a calcined beta zeolite”
In claim 4 and 7, “the vapor-filled beta zeolite” should read “a vapor-filled beta zeolite”
In claim 8, “the pretreated target water” should read “a pretreated target water”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mancinelli et al (Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2023, hereinafter Mancinelli )
Regarding claim 1, Mancinelli disclose the method of measuring concentrations of long-chain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), short-chain PFASs, and ultra-short-chain PFASs separately in target water (Abstract) and cyclically adsorbing and removing, using the selected Beta zeolite, the ultra-short-chain PFASs from the target water (Abstract and ¶[2.5]) but fails to explicitly disclose calculating a first ratio and a second ratio; and selecting, based on the first ratio and the second ratio, Beta zeolite with a silicon-to-aluminum ratio; wherein, the first ratio is a ratio of a concentration of the long-chain PFASs to a combined concentration of the short-chain PFASs and the ultra-short-chain PFASs; and the second ratio is a ratio of the concentration of the short-chain PFASs to the concentration of the ultra-short-chain PFASs.
However, Mancinelli discloses that the aluminum content of zeolite controls the adsorption process and PFAS sorption depends on the perfluoroalkyl chain length (Conclusion). Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to routine optimize the teachings of Mancinelli to have multiple ranges of the zeolites’ silicon-to-aluminum ratio based on the ratio of chain lengths, to effectively remove said PFAS from the target water. See MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 2, Mancinelli disclose method of claim 1, wherein the long-chain PFASs have carbon chains with lengths of C8 to C12; the short-chain PFASs have carbon chains with lengths of C4 to C7; and the ultra-short-chain PFASs have carbon chains with lengths of C1 to C3 (¶ [2.3])
Regarding claim 3, Mancinelli disclose method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose calculating a first ratio and a second ratio; and selecting, based on the first ratio and the second ratio, Beta zeolite with a silicon-to-aluminum ratio; wherein, the first ratio is a ratio of a concentration of the long-chain PFASs to a combined concentration of the short-chain PFASs and the ultra-short-chain PFASs; and the second ratio is a ratio of the concentration of the short-chain PFASs to the concentration of the ultra-short-chain PFASs.
However, Mancinelli discloses that the aluminum content of zeolite controls the adsorption process and PFAS sorption depends on the perfluoroalkyl chain length (Conclusion). Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to routine optimize the teachings of Mancinelli to have multiple ranges of the zeolites’ silicon-to-aluminum ratio based on the ratio of chain lengths, to effectively remove said PFAS from the target water. See MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 4, Mancinelli disclose method of claim 1, wherein in 3), cyclically adsorbing and removing, using the selected Beta zeolite, the ultra-short-chain PFASs from the target water comprises: 3 .1) calcining the selected Beta zeolite (¶[2.2]); filling the calcined Beta zeolite with water vapor; and adsorbing, using the vapor-filled Beta zeolite, the ultrashort- chain PFASs from the target water; and 3.2) (¶[2.3-2.4]) re-calcining the Beta zeolite with adsorbed ultra-short-chain PFASs, and repeating 3.1) for cyclic adsorption treatment (¶[2.7-3.1]).
Regarding claim 5, Mancinelli disclose method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein in 3.1), the selected Beta zeolite is calcined at 700-900°C in an air atmosphere for 4-8 h.
However, Mancinelli discloses the selected beta zeolite being calcined at 600 ℃ for 3 hours. Therefore, it would be premia facie obvious to routine optimized the heating and time to calcine a beta zeolite.
Regarding claim 9, Mancinelli discloses method of claim 4, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the concentration of the total PFASs is a sum of concentrations of the long-chain PFASs, the short-chain PFASs, and the ultra-short-chain PFASs. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the total concentration of PFA’s is sum of the induvial PFA’s within the solution.
Regarding claim 10, Mancinelli discloses method of claim 1, Mancinelli discloses wherein the target water is selected from at least one of micro polluted water bodies and drinking water (abstract and Fig 3 description).
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 8 are rejected due to their dependence of claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/K.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights