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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of in the reply filed on 15 September 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the Restriction Requirement does not adequately establish that the claimed inventions are distinct in a manner that imposes a serious search and examination burden” (pg. 2, par. 3). This is not found persuasive because there is indeed a search and examination burden because the identified inventions are directed to different statutory categories of invention, and especially that Invention I, Claims 1-13, requires a system that can be used to practice a materially different process than that claimed by Invention II, e.g., a treatment of water to remove cations and other hard minerals, and a purification of beer to remove alcoholic content. A search for Invention I does not require consideration of PFAS-containing fluid, and a search based on PFAS requires a different approach, i.e., a serious search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 15 September 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (has PRO 63/583,052, filed 15 September 2023) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 4-7 are 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.
Regarding Claim 4, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the filtration media”. The Examiner will assume Applicant intended to reference “the green sorption media”. Claims 5-7 are also rejected due to their dependence on Claim 4.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO et al. (US 2021/0114909 A1) in view of DJENANI (WO 0212138 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, ZHAO discloses a method and system for treating water obtained from a salt production process to produce drinkable water (abstract). The system includes, among other modules, a sand filtration pretreatment followed by a membrane filtration treatment (p0009), the membrane filtration treatment including nanofiltration (p0051). As further shown in FIG. 2, the sand filtration treatment unit 200 comprising, e.g., sand (i.e., a filtration chamber for pretreating the fluid, the filtration chamber including a green sorption media, p0058), is fluidically and mechanically in communication with the membrane filtration treatment unit 500 (i.e., a… nanofiltration chamber fluidically coupled to the filtration chamber; wherein the filtration chamber is in mechanical communication, fluidic communication, or both with the… nanofiltration chamber; wherein subsequent to pretreating the fluid, the filtration chamber transports the pretreated fluid to the… nanofiltration chamber, whereby the… chamber is configured to receive pretreated fluid from the filtration chamber and filter the pretreated fluid through the at least one nanofiltration membrane; p0056, FIG. 2). ZHAO is deficient in disclosing crossflow nanofiltration or a centrifugal pump.
However, such elements of nanofiltration are common in the art. In order to provide sufficient transmembrane pressure, a pump is required to drive the flow of solution through the system. For example, DJENANI discloses the use of tangential membrane filtration (pg. 5, par. 1) for the treatment of water effluent or discharge (pg. 2, par. 1-3). Briefly, DJENANI discloses the use of membrane treatment by tangential filtration, namely nanofiltration (i.e., a crossflow nanofiltration chamber; pg. 5, par. 1); advantageously, tangential filtration eliminates or reduces membrane fouling or clogging issues commonly encountered that would otherwise lead to reduced treatment efficacy (pg. 5, par. 4). DJENANI further discloses the use of a pressurizing pump, e.g., a centrifugal pump, for providing the sufficient driving force to effect tangential filtration (i.e., the crossflow nanofiltration chamber comprising at least one nanofiltration membrane and [a] centrifugal pump; pg. 5, par. 3). The use of a centrifugal pump would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as such a pump is one of the most common pump-types in the art and would be rote or routine to utilize such a pump for filtration applications; if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (MPEP §2143(I)E). Thus, the use of crossflow or tangential nanofiltration with a centrifugal pump would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as taught by DJENANI for the system disclosed by ZHAO.
The preamble “[a] water treatment system for removing per-fluoroalkyl substances, polyfluoroalkyl substances, or both from a fluid” is not considered a limitation having patentable weight. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (MPEP 2111.02 II). In the instant application, the body of the claim does not recite any limitation that would require one of ordinary skill to consider the treatment of a fluid having perfluoroalkyl substances or polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Regarding Claim 8, modified ZHAO makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 1. ZHAO further shows in FIG. 2 that a number of treatment units precede the membrane filtration treatment unit 500, e.g., units 100, 300, and 400 (i.e., wherein the crossflow nanofiltration chamber further comprises a feed tank; p0056).
Regarding Claim 9, modified ZHAO makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 8. As disclosed by ZHAO, water is treated sequentially from unit 100, through the sand filtration unit 200, and then the membrane filtration unit 500 (i.e., wherein the filtration chamber is configured to receive the fluid from the feed tank and pretreat the fluid, via the green sorption media; p0056).
Regarding Claim 10, modified ZHAO makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 9. The instant limitation “wherein the fluid is translated through the green sorption media, whereby a first portion of per-fluoroalkyl substances, polyfluoroalkyl substances, or both are adsorbed within at least one portion of a surface of the green sorption media” is directed to materials or articles worked upon by the claimed system and is not subject to patentable consideration. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO et al. (US 2021/0114909 A1) in view of DJENANI (WO 0212138 A1) as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of ORDONEZ et al. (Environmental Research, 212, 31 March 2022, 113208).
Regarding Claim 2, modified ZHAO makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 1. Modified ZHAO is deficient in disclosing the green sorption media comprises a mixture of sand particles of about 85 vol %, clay particles of about 5 vol %, or both.
ORDONEZ discloses the treatment of water for removing natural organic matter (NOM) and their byproducts for producing drinking water (§Introduction, par. 1); the group investigated the use of various sorption media, including clay, tire crumb, and sand (CTS); clay, perlite, and sand (CPS); and zero-valent iron and perlite green environmental media (ZIPGEM) (§Introduction, par. 4; Table 1). As noted in Table 1, the ZIPGEM media contains at least 85% sand and 5% clay; advantageously, of the different sorption media tested, ZIPGEM provided the longest sustained NOM removal (§Conclusion, par. 1); advantageously, the authors noted that the synergistic interactions among the different ingredients of ZIPGEM promoted NOM removal “by improving physicochemical interactions” (§Conclusion, par. 1). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a green sorption media comprising a mixture of sand particles of about 85 vol % and clay particles of about 5 vol% as taught by ORDONEZ for the water treatment system made obvious by ZHAO.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, modified ZHAO makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 2. As noted in Table 1 of ORDONEZ, the ZIPGEM media further includes 4% perlite, which is considered to read upon or at least make obvious the instant limitation requiring that the green sorption media further “comprises perlite particles of about 5 vol%”.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO et al. (US 2021/0114909 A1) in view of DJENANI (WO 0212138 A1) as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of OSORIO et al. (Desalination, 527, 28 January 2022, 115552).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, modified ZHAO makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 1. Modified ZHAO is deficient in disclosing a plurality of divalent cations disposed about at least one portion of the filtration chamber, the crossflow nanofiltration chamber, or both (Claim 11) or that at least one of the plurality of divalent cations is disposed about at least one portion of a surface of the at least one nanofiltration membrane (Claim 12).
OSORIO discloses the nanofiltration of water using nanofiltration membranes, e.g., polyamide thin-film composite membranes, to remove impurities (§Introduction, par. 1-3). OSORIO further discloses that the adsorption of divalent cations, e.g., calcium and magnesium, onto the negatively charged carboxylic groups of polyamide functional groups results in a charge reversal of the membrane (i.e., a plurality of divalent cations disposed about at least one portion of the filtration chamber, the crossflow nanofiltration chamber, or both (Claim 11); at least one of the plurality of divalent cations is disposed about at least one portion of a surface of the at least one nanofiltration membrane (Claim 12); §Introduction, par. 8) and showed increased rejection of other cations, e.g., sodium and calcium ions, in the filtration of feed water due to electrostatic repulsion (§3.2, par. 3-4). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide divalent adsorbed onto nanofiltration membranes to enhance their ion rejection rates as taught by OSORIO for the water treatment system made obvious by modified ZHAO.
Regarding Claim 13, modified ZHAO makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 12. DJENANI further discloses the membrane treatment by tangential filtration is monitored by necessary controls, including those that measure flow rates and speed (pg. 5, par. 3). This necessarily implies the presence of multiple flowmeters for monitoring the tangential filtration process (i.e., the crossflow nanofiltration chamber further comprises a plurality of flowmeters). The limitation “whereby the plurality of flowmeters are configured to monitor the rate of water translation through the crossflow nanofiltration chamber to optimize filtration, via the at least one nanofiltration membrane” is directed toward an intended use of the claimed flowmeters. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II). A flowmeter can certainly be used to “optimize” a filtration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 requires the green sorption media to further comprise zero-valent iron of “at most 5 vol %”, i.e., when considered with Claims 1-3, the green sorption media composition requires a mixture of about 85 vol% sand particles, about 5 vol% clay particles, about 5 vol% perlite particles, and at most 5 vol% ZVI particles. The cited art, ORDONEZ et al., while disclosing a ZIPGEM media comprising sand, clay, ZVI, and perlite, discloses a 6% by volume of ZVI rather than the limiting “at most 5 vol%” as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
YIN et al. (Science of the Total Environment 831, 2022, 154939). YIN discloses the use of positively charged cations, e.g., copper, calcium, magnesium, and lead, to increase the adsorption of PFAS due to the increased number of available sorption sites and promotion of bridges between functional groups to increase potential adsorption sites (§2.1.3, par. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights