Patent Application 17749276 - IONIC-FUNCTIONALIZED WOOD PULP AND RELATED

Title: IONIC-FUNCTIONALIZED WOOD PULP AND RELATED METHODS FOR WATER TREATMENT

Application Information

Invention Title: IONIC-FUNCTIONALIZED WOOD PULP AND RELATED METHODS FOR WATER TREATMENT
Application Number: 17749276
Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 210
National Sub-Class: 670000
Examiner Employee Number: 85767
Art Unit: 1779
Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0008522🔗
US 0055694🔗

Office Action Text

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 .
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) 1-7 and 15-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al., “Highly efficient sorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoate on a quaternized cotton prepared by atom transfer radical polymerization”, Chem. Eng. J., (2012) (Deng, IDS) in view of Reeve et al., US 2021/0008522 (Reeve) and Muramatsu et al., US 2019/0055694 (Muramatsu, IDS) as evidenced by Mehmood et al., “Advances in lignocellulosic biotechnology”, Adv. Bioscience and Biotech., (2014) (Mehmood).
Regarding claim 1, Deng discloses a cationic-modified cellulosic material (see “quaternized cotton”, abstract) comprising:
A cellulosic backbone (see “cotton”, Scheme 1, section 2.1); and
A plurality of cationic groups (see “P(DMAEMA)” and “Quaternized cotton”, Scheme 1) each of which is attached to the cellulosic backbone (pendant -OH groups, Scheme 1) via a corresponding linking group containing 1-6 carbon atoms (Scheme 1).
Deng does not disclose the cellulosic material is a wood pulp. However, Reeve discloses cationic-modified cellulose materials for adsorption of PFAS (abstract, ¶ 0016, 0021) where the cellulose can be selected from a variety of different sources including lignocellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, microfibrillated cellulose, and cellulose derivatives (¶ 0013). Reeve further discloses that lignocellulose materials can be in the form of a powder or pulp (¶ 0013).
Additionally, Muramatsu discloses cellulose-based materials routinely used in purification processes (abstract, ¶ 0002-0003) can comprise cellulose from a variety of sources including bamboo, cloth, softwood pulp, and hardwood pulp (¶ 0010).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the material of Deng to include lignocellulose pulp as described in Reeve and Muramatsu since it has been shown that a variety of cellulosic materials are effective as purification substrates and the selection of any of these known materials on the basis of their suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, modified Deng discloses the cationic group comprises an ammonium group (Scheme 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Deng discloses the material having an ether linking group between the cellulosic backbone and the cationic group (Scheme 1). Limitations drawn to the specific reaction to arrive at the ether linking group are considered product-by-process limitations which do not materially limit the claim so long as the end result is what is claimed (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 4, modified Deng discloses the material being free from functionalizing groups other than the cationic groups (Scheme 1).
Regarding claims 5-7, while modified Deng discloses general conditions for producing the cationic-modified material (section 2.2), Deng does not disclose the recited amount of cationic groups per gram/backbone repeating unit of cationic-modified material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the recited amount of cationic groups since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a formulation involves only routine skill in the art absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05, Section II, Part A).
Regarding claim 15, Muramatsu further discloses utilizing softwood pulp, bamboo pulp, and hardwood pulp among others (¶ 0010). Additionally, hardwood pulp and softwood pulp are known to comprise up to 40% and 35% respectively of hemicellulose, the component which contributes to the amorphous content of lignocellulosic materials (Table 1).
Regarding claim 16, Muramatsu further discloses the cellulosic material can be in fiber form (¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 17, Reeve further discloses the cellulose material can be in the form of granules (¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 18, modified Deng discloses a method for treating PFAS contaminated water comprising:
Providing a contaminated water comprising PFAS (Section 2.3); and
Contacting the contaminated water with the material described above for a time sufficient to adsorb at least a portion of the PFAS from the contaminated water (Section 2.3) thereby forming a PFAS reduced water and PFAS loaded adsorbent material (Section 3.5).
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Deng disclose a method wherein the PFAS has 4-20 perfluorinated carbon atoms and at least one anionic group or cationic group (see PFOS, PFOA, abstract, section 2.3), where the loaded adsorbent material comprises anionic PFAS loaded thereon (section 2.3).
Regarding claim 21, while modified Deng discloses adsorption kinetics and capacity of the cationic-modified material (Table 1), Deng does not disclose the treated water having a PFAS concentration that is 20% or less than that of the contaminated water. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method such that the PFAS concentration is reduced by at least 20% since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are recited in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of components to bring about a desired result involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05, Section II, Part A).
Regarding claim 22, modified Deng discloses a method wherein the cationic-modified material contacts PFAS contaminated water for at least 5 seconds (see “Equilibration Time”, Table 1).
Regarding claim 23, while modified Deng discloses adsorption kinetics and capacity of the cationic-modified material (Table 1), Deng does not disclose cationic-modified material having the recited adsorption capacity. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method such that the PFAS adsorption capacity is within the recited range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are recited in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of components to bring about a desired result involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05, Section II, Part A).
Regarding claim 24, modified Deng discloses contacting the contaminated water with the cationic-modified material in a batch process (section 2.3).
Regarding claim 25, modified Deng discloses a method wherein the PFAS is present in the contaminated water at a concentration in a range of 1 ng/L to 1 mg/L (section 2.3).
Regarding claim 26, modified Deng discloses a method wherein the contaminated water has a pH in a range of 5-9 (section 2.3).
Regarding claim 27, modified Deng discloses a method wherein the contaminated water further comprises sodium chloride at a concentration in a range of 0 to 100 mg/L (section 2.3).
Regarding claim 28, modified Deng does not disclose a method wherein the contaminated water further comprises humic acids, fulvic acids, and/or humins. However, Reeve discloses sources of PFAS can be from groundwater (¶ 0009) and contain a plurality of organic acids and/or organic matter particulates (¶ 0021, 0032, 0038, 0049). Therefore, it can be envisaged that a contaminated water originating from a groundwater source which contains organic matter and organic acids would also contain humic acid, fulvic acid, and/or humins since these are naturally occurring components in soil, which serve as a source of organic contamination of said groundwater sources.
Regarding claim 29, Reeve further discloses a method wherein loaded cationic-modified material is treated to degrade adsorbed PFAS (¶ 0058).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (571) 270-3240. 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.

DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779

/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779