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 Status
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Claims 19-30 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “(PFAS” in line 2 should be replaced with --(PFAS)--.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are finally 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a treatment solution” in line 7. It is not clear if this is the same treatment solution claimed in line 4 or if this is a different treatment solution.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the inorganic ion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the inorganic ion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inorganic ion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inorganic ion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broderick et al. (US 2024/0034654) [hereinafter Broderick] in view of Bolton et al. (US 5,258,124) [hereinafter Bolton] and Gottlieb et al. (US 2022/0134254) [hereinafter Gottlieb].
With respect to claims 1-2, Broderick discloses a process for destroying PFAS, as shown in Fig. 2, including the steps of: providing a reductive reagent comprising a photosensitizer to a waste water stream (see paragraphs 0007-0008), the waste water stream comprising PFAS (see paragraph 0035), to form a treatment solution having a pH of about 8 or more (see paragraphs 0007-0008); exposing a treatment solution to a UV light source from one or more lamps (2) in a continuous reactor (1) (see paragraph 0035), continuously flowing the treatment solution through an outlet (B) of the continuous reactor (1), as shown in Fig. 3; wherein exposing the treatment solution to UV light in the continuous reactor (1) results in partially or fully defluorinating about 80% or more of the PFAS in the treatment solution (see paragraph 0038).
Broderick does not disclose the step of: then, continuously flowing the treatment solution through an inlet of a continuous reactor; flowing the treatment solution through the continuous reactor at a flow rate of equal to or greater than 5 gallons per minute; and wherein the flow rate is between about 5 gpm and about 100 gpm.
With respect to the step of: then, continuously flowing the treatment solution through an inlet of a continuous reactor: Bolton discloses a waste water treatment apparatus, as shown in Fig. 1, including a mixer and a UV reactor, as shown in Fig. 1. Bolton teaches that treatment can be performed by mixing the desired reagents with the contaminated water and then feeding the mixture through one or more UV reactors, the number of reactors and the numbers of UV lamps per reactor, and the power of each lamp being selected to give the desired level of treatment of the contaminants (see col. 5, lines 39-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process disclosed by Broderick by mixing the desired reagents with the contaminated water and then continuously flowing the treatment solution through an inlet of a continuous reactor, as taught by Bolton, instead of mixing in the reactor as taught by Broderick, in order to perform a continuous process, since this modification still has the solution with the reductive reagent and photosensitizer, but mixing will happen before entering the UV-reactor, as taught by Bolton, and this may increase the efficiency of the process.
With respect to flowing the treatment solution through the continuous reactor at a flow rate of equal to or greater than 5 gallons per minute; and wherein the flow rate is between about 5 gpm and about 100 gpm: Gottlieb discloses a process for removing PFAS from a fluid using an ion exchange resin, as shown in Fig. 1. Gottlieb teaches that the removal of the contaminants is related to the flow rate of the liquid 36 through the column 14, as shown in Fig. 1, and more specifically, by the empty bed contact time (EBCT) between the DMAE resin 12 and the liquid 36, and the tank 16 and the volume 14 can be sized and otherwise configured to provide an optimal combination resin bed height, pressure loss, and flow rate for a particular application (see paragraph 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the process disclosed by Broderick as modified by Bolton with a flow rate of equal to or greater than 5 gallons per minute; and between about 5 gpm and about 100 gpm, as claimed by applicant, since one of ordinary skill would recognize that the flow rate can be selected and/or optimize according to a desired application (see paragraph 0039 of Gottlieb).
With respect to claims 3-4, Broderick lacks wherein the ultraviolet light source emits light predominantly at a wavelength between about 150nm and about 300nm; and wherein the ultraviolet light source emits light predominantly at a wavelength between about 200nm and about 300nm. However, the difference between Broderick and the claimed invention is that the wavelength range disclosed by Broderick, i.e., 100 nm-500nm (see paragraph 0030) overlaps with the claimed wavelength range, i.e., between about 150nm and about 300nm; and wavelength between about 200nm and about 300nm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)."
With respect to claim 5, Broderick discloses wherein the inorganic ion is present at a concentration of at least about 0.1mM in the treatment solution (see paragraph 0031).
With respect to claim 6, Broderick discloses wherein the inorganic ion comprises iodide, sulfite, bromide, chloride, or sulfate (see paragraphs 0007-0008, 0031and 0045-0067).
With respect to claim 7, Broderick discloses wherein the inorganic ion comprises iodide and/or sulfite (see paragraphs 0007-0008, 0031and 0045-0067).
With respect to claims 8-9, Broderick discloses wherein the inorganic ion comprises iodide and sulfite (see paragraph 0031). With respect to the limitations wherein the iodide is present at a concentration of between about 0.1mM to 5mM in the treatment solution and wherein the sulfite is present at a concentration of between about 0. 1mM to about 20mM in the treatment solution; and wherein the iodide concentration is between about 0.25 mM to about 2 mM and the sulfite concentration is between about 0.5 mM and about 5 mM: the difference between Broderick and the claimed invention is that the concentration range disclosed by Broderick, i.e., 0.1 mM-200 mM (see paragraph 0031) overlaps with the claimed wavelength range, i.e., between about 0.1mM to 5mM; between about 0.1mM to about 20mM; between about 0.25 mM to about 2 mM; and between about 0.5 mM and about 5 mM. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)."
With respect to claim 10, Broderick discloses wherein, after exposing the treatment solution to the UV light source, the PFAS is present in the treatment solution at a concentration between about 10ppt and about 500ppm (see Table 1).
With respect to claim 11, Broderick discloses wherein, after exposing the treatment solution to the UV light source, the PFAS is present in the treatment solution at a concentration between about 10ppt to 100ppm PFAS (see Table 1).
With respect to claims 12-15, Broderick as modified by Gottlieb lacks wherein the UV light source is supplied by electrical power of greater than about 3000 watts; wherein the electrical power is greater than about 10000 watts; wherein the electrical power is greater than about 30000 watts; and wherein the electrical power is between about 3000 watts and about 200,000 watts. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to power the UV light source, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose an appropriate wattage according to a desired application.
With respect to claim 16, Broderick discloses wherein exposing the treatment solution to UV light in the continuous reactor results in partially or fully defluorinating about 90% or more of the PFAS in the treatment solution (see Table 1).
With respect to claim 17, Broderick discloses wherein exposing the treatment solution to UV light in the continuous reactor results in partially or fully defluorinating about 99% or more of the PFAS in the treatment solution (see Table 1).
With respect to claim 18, Broderick discloses wherein exposing the treatment solution to UV light in the continuous reactor results in partially or fully defluorinating about 99.9 or more of the PFAS in the treatment solution (see Table 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 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.
In response to applicant’s argument that Broderick lacks a method in which the photosensitizer and base are added to the waste water before entry into the reactor, as required by amended claim 1: Bolton teaches this new limitation, and it would have been obvious to modify Broderick, as stated above.
In response to applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to increase the rate of flow through the reactor of Broderick: This argument id not persuasive. Gottlieb teaches that the flow rate may be optimize (see paragraph 0039 of Gottlieb) and therefore, it would be obvious to modify the flow rate of Bolton, as stated above.
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 MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights