DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-5, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sah (CN 115210177 A) in view of Knight (US 20210009412 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sah discloses a per- and polyfluoroalkyls (PFA) removal system (the system is capable of removing PFAs) comprising:
a torch reaction zone (first reaction zone 120/220 + combustion zone 140/240);
an organic compound stream (e.g., natural gas or biogas) (pg. 14, paragraph starting with “The gas mixture…”), the organic compound stream injected into the torch reaction zone (para. 14);
a hydrogen stream (the hydrogen gas in the pyrolyzed gas mixture 144/244; see pg. 17, paragraph starting with “The method of the invention…”), the hydrogen stream injected into the torch reaction zone;
an oxygen stream (148) the oxygen stream injected into the torch reaction zone;
a waste stream (124/224), the waste stream injected into the torch reaction zone; and
a flue gas stream (gas mixture 144/244, not including the hydrogen gas), the flue gas stream discharged from the torch reaction zone;
wherein the flue gas stream includes syngas (gas created from a pyrolysis/decomposition process)
Sah fails to disclose:
where the waste stream is a hot waste stream
Knight teaches a waste removal system comprising: a hot waste stream (Fig. 1: input feedstock 154 is preheated in the heat exchanger 112 by the hot flue gas 110; paras. 39, 46), the hot waste stream injected into the torch reaction zone (Fig. 1, 102).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Sah where the waste stream is a hot waste stream that is injected into the torch reaction zone. By using the flue gas to preheat the waste stream in the heat exchanger, thermal efficiency is increased (see para. 39 of Knight).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sah discloses the PFA removal system of claim 1, wherein the waste stream includes gas, liquid, and organics (Sah, pg. 8, paragraph starting with “In use, the pyrolyzable…”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sah discloses the PFA removal system of claim 1, wherein the organics can include PFAs. Sah discloses that the waste stream can include biosolids, biomass, waste polymers, municipal solid waste (Sah; top of pg. 13), and more. Waste containing PFAs are found in municipal solid waste.
Regarding claim 4, modified Sah discloses the PFA removal system of claim 1, wherein hydrogen stream and the oxygen stream may be decreased to achieve a lower reaction temperature resulting in increased PFAs destruction. It is inherent that the hydrogen stream and oxygen steam can be regulated; therefore, they can be controlled to achieve a lower reaction temperature resulting in increased PFAs destruction. Moreover, the phrase, “may be” can be examined to mean that it is optional and not required of the claim.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sah discloses the PFA removal system of claim 1 further comprising a heat exchanger, the heat exchanger adapted to cool the flue gas stream to form a cooled flue gas stream using a cold waste stream to form the hot waste stream (see Knight in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sah discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations) a per- and polyfluoroalkyls (PFA) removal process comprising: introducing an organic compound stream, a hydrogen stream and an oxygen stream into a torch reaction zone; reacting the organic compound stream, the hydrogen stream, and the oxygen stream in the torch reaction zone to form a hydrogen-organic compound torch (biogas, syngas, and oxygen react in combustion zone 140); reacting a hot waste stream in the torch reaction zone to form a flue gas stream; discharging the flue gas stream from the torch reaction zone, wherein the flue gas stream includes syngas.
Regarding claim 9, modified Xu discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the hot waste stream comprises PFAs (see rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 10, modified Xu discloses the method of claim 8, except wherein the amount of PFAs in the hot waste stream is reduced by at least 97% by reaction with the hydrogen-organic compound torch. However, the percentage is a destruction efficiency, which is a matter of optimization. A person skilled in the art would have the requisite skill and knowledge to mix the various reactants in a combustion zone, so that the PFAs are reduced to the desired level. Moreover, PFAs are harmful to the environment and to people; therefore, a person skilled in the art would be motivated to maximize the destruction efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, modified Xu discloses the method of claim 8 further comprising: exchanging heat in the flue gas stream in a heat exchanger to form a cooled flue gas stream using a cool waste stream to form the hot waste stream (see rejection of claim 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights