Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action based on application 17/250,918 filed on 26 March 2021. The application is a 371 of PCT /CA2019 /051443 filed 10 October 2019, with priority to US provisional application 62/744,146 filed 11 October 2018.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 12-15, 17, 22, 24-29, and 31-34 are pending; claims 1, 6-7, 9, 12-15, and 17 are withdrawn; and claims 22, 24-29, and 31-34 have been fully considered.
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 .
Status of the Rejection
The §112(b) rejection of record is withdrawn
The §102 rejections of record are overcome by Applicant's amendments, and are withdrawn.
New §103 grounds are applied responsive to Applicant's amendment
New §112(a) grounds are applied responsive to Applicant's amendment
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is advised that product-by-process limitations are limited only by the structure of the claimed product, and are not limited by the process of making the product. If the prior art product has the same structure as the claimed product, then the prior art product reads on the claim regardless of how the prior art product is made. In the context of the present case, this means:
A reactive oxygen species can read on the limitation "copper-generated reactive oxygen species" no matter whether or not copper was involved in its generation.
An organic contaminant in the aqueous solution can read on the limitation "organic contaminant oxidized by the copper-generated reactive oxygen species" even if the reference does not disclose that it is to be oxidized by the ROS, or even if the reference does not disclose that it is to be oxidized at all.
See MPEP 2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22, 24-29, 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 22 is rejected under 112(a) because of the limitation requiring that the electrolyte comprises a copper-generated reactive oxygen species (ROS). The originally filed disclosure does not disclose adding a reactive oxygen species to the electrolyte. On the contrary, the original specification specifically states that the electrolyte is free of a number of specific oxidizing species including reactive oxygen species (see specification pg 3-6, items 19-21, and pg 7-8, items 37-38: "... the aqueous solution is free of any one or more (preferably all) of the following ... peroxydisulfate ... ozone ... H2O2 ... other chemical oxidants"; see also specification para [0019]). Apart from a passing mention at para [0009] that ROS could be produced at the anode, there is no evidence or enabling description in the specification of an electrolyte containing reactive oxygen species, nor contravening the specification's repeated statement that the electrolyte preferably does not contain oxidants. Claim 22 is therefore rejected under 112(a) because the limitation requiring the electrolyte to contain reactive oxygen species is new matter which is not supported in the text of the originally filed disclosure. Claims 24-29, 31-34 are rejected by extension because they depend from claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Gordy" (US 3,703,453 A to Gordy et al), in view of "Pimentel" (Pimentel et al, "Phenol degradation by advanced electrochemical oxidation process electro-Fenton using a carbon felt cathode", Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 83, 140-149 (2008)).
Regarding claim 22, Gordy teaches an apparatus for electrochemical water treatment (col 1 ln 10-22 abstract), the apparatus comprising
- an electrochemical cell (col 3 ln 61 - col 4 ln 4, "electrolytic cell ...") comprising an anode and a cathode (col 3 ln 67-69, "Graphite plates ... were used for the anode and cathode"), and an electrolyte (col 4 ln 5-12, "The anode solution consisted of ... hydrochloric acid ... water ... cuprous chloride catalyst"), the electrolyte contacting the anode and the cathode (col 2 ln 26-54, col 3 ln 10-17, the electrolyte is cycled between the anode chamber and the cathode chamber of the cell);
- an inlet allowing the electrolyte in the electrochemical cell (Gordy does not specifically point out an inlet, however, since Gordy teaches electrolyte flows into the cell (col 2 ln 26-54), it necessarily follows that the cell comprises an inlet allowing electrolyte into the cell); and
- an outlet allowing purified water out of the electrochemical cell (Gordy does not specifically point out an inlet, however, since Gordy teaches purified water is taken out of the electrolytic cell (col 2 ln 26-54), it necessarily follows that the cell comprises an outlet allowing purified water to be taken out),
wherein the electrolyte is an aqueous solution comprising:
- water to be treated (aqueous slurry of organic sewage; col 4 ln 12-42),
- chloride ions (CI−), and copper (II) and/or copper (I) ions (col 3 ln 1-45, the electrolyte initially contains added hydrochloric acid and copper (I) chloride, and in the course of anodic treatment, the copper (I) ions are oxidized to copper (II)), and
- an organic contaminant oxidized by electrolytic action catalyzed by the copper catalyst (col 3 ln 25-45),
- wherein the total copper ions concentration, [Cu2+] + [Cu+], in the aqueous solution is greater than 20 µM, and the chloride ion concentration, [CI−], in the aqueous solution is greater than 10 mM (col 4 ln 27-30, "In the present experiment, five pounds of cuprous chloride were used in a volume of approximately ten gallons of combined acid-catalyst-slurry anode mixture"; 5 lb = 2268 g = 22.9 mol CuCl, and 10 gal = 37.9 L; the total copper concentration [Cu+] + [Cu2+] is therefore about 0.6 mol/L; the concentration [Cl−] is more than 0.6 M because, in addition to 0.6 mol/L CuCl, Gordy also added concentrated hydrochloric acid to the electrolyte (col 4 ln 5-12)).
While Gordy teaches that the organic contaminant is oxidized by electrolytic action catalyzed by the copper catalyst (col 3 ln 25-45), Gordy does not specifically disclose that copper-generated reactive oxygen species are present. Gordy also does not teach that the pH of the electrolyte is between 1 and 12.
Pimentel is directed to a method of electrochemical oxidation of organic contaminants in wastewater using a transition metal catalyst which may be copper (pg 140 abstract, "Oxidation of phenol in aqueous media by electro-Fenton ... iron, cobalt, manganese, and copper were used to provide the metal cations"). Pimentel discloses using an electrochemical cell with an anode and cathode (pg 142 left column para 1-2), and as the electrolyte, an aqueous solution comprising the water to be treated and an organic contaminant to be oxidized (pg 142 right column para 5, "0.33 mM aqueous phenol solutions (equivalent to 24 mg L−1 of TOC)") and copper ions at a concentration of greater than 20 µM (pg 141 right column para 1-3, "Several metal cations have been tested as catalysts"; Table 1, the catalysts Pimentel demonstrates include salts of Co, Cu, Fe, and Mn, and in the copper embodiments, the copper ion concentration is 1, 5, or 10 mM), wherein the pH of the aqueous solution is about 3 (pg 142 right column para 5, "acid medium (pH = 3)"), which falls within the claimed pH range of from 1 to 12. Pimentel teaches that 3 is the ideal pH for electro-Fenton oxidation (pg 141 left column para 2-4, "pH 3 assures ideal conditions ([H+]/[O2] ≈ 2) to optimize electrochemical production of hydrogen peroxide according to the following equation ... O2 + 2 H+ + 2 e− → H2O2"). Pimentel also teaches that the oxidation of the organic contaminant in an electro-Fenton reaction proceeds through the metal-catalyzed generation of a reactive oxygen species (pg 141 left column para 2 - right column para 2), which subsequently reacts with the organic contaminant to decompose it (pg 141 left column para 7, "Hydroxyl radicals are produced in a catalytic and controlled way, allowing the mineralization of organic pollutants"; pg 143 right column para 1 - pg 146 left column para 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gordy by altering the electrolyte pH to a pH of about 3, based on Pimentel's disclosure that pH of 3 is ideal for copper-catalyzed electrochemical oxidation of organic contaminants in wastewater. Furthermore, differences in acid concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
In view of Pimentel's teaching that the metal catalyst generates reactive oxygen species under the disclosed reaction conditions and the organic contaminant is oxidized by such species (pg 141 left column para 2 - right column para 2), it is apparent that such reactive oxygen species will inherently be present in the electrolyte of Gordy's device during device operation.
Claims 22, 24, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Branchick" (US 4,436,601 A to Branchick et al), in view of "Downes" (US 5,230,782 A to Downes et al) and "Wimbish" (US 5,409,582 A to Wimbish et al).
Regarding claim 22, Branchick teaches an apparatus for electrochemical water treatment of aqueous plating waste (figure 1; col 1 ln 5-7, "for reducing the concentration of metal(s) in aqueous solutions of plating wastes"), the apparatus comprising
- an electrochemical cell (figure 1; col 4 ln 35 - col 5 ln 23) comprising an anode (figure 1, plurality of anodes 16), a cathode (figure 1, plurality of cathodes 17), and an electrolyte, the electrolyte contacting the anode and the cathode (col 6 ln 15-17, "The platers' rinse waters can then be fed through inlet nozzle 12 into contact with the plurality of anodes and cathodes");
- an inlet allowing the electrolyte in the electrochemical cell (figure 1, inlet 12; col 4 ln 44-47); and
- an outlet allowing purified water out of the electrochemical cell (figure 1, outlet 13; col 4 ln 44-47),
wherein the electrolyte is an aqueous solution comprising water to be treated (col 1 ln 5-7, "aqueous solutions of plating wastes"; col 1 ln 46-49, "plating wastes comprise various aqueous solution containing silver, copper, cadmium, mercury, ... These plating wastes must be treated prior to discharge"), chloride ions (CI−), and copper(II) ions (particularly, in Example 7 (col 11 ln 25-60; figure 5), the electrolyte is an aqueous solution of copper (II) chloride), wherein the total copper ions concentration, [Cu2+] + [Cu+], in the aqueous solution is at least about 20 µM and the chloride ion concentration, [CI−], in the aqueous solution is at least about 10 mM (col 11 ln 29-32 and 40-41, the aqueous solution comprises copper (II) chloride at a concentration corresponding to 790 ppm Cu, i.e. 790 mg Cu/L, which corresponds to a molar concentration of about 12.4 mM [Cu2+] and 24.9 mM [Cl−]), wherein the electrolyte further comprises a reactive oxygen species (col 11 ln 32-34, "The anode electrochemical reaction was the evolution of oxygen with the subsequent protonation fo the rinse solution [electrolyte]"), and wherein the pH of the aqueous solution ranges from 9.5 to 10 (Example 7, figure 5, col 11 ln 40-42) which falls within the claimed pH range of from about 1 to about 12. In another embodiment, the pH of the aqueous copper-contaminated solution ranges from 3.6 to 5.3 (Example 8, figure 6, col 12 ln 10-12), which also falls within the claimed pH range of about 1 to about 12.
Branchick discloses that the aqueous solution may contain "at least one metal" (col 3 ln 40) which may be reduced at the cathode, implying that it may contain, in addition to copper, a metal other than copper. Branchick also discloses that the aqueous solution may contain a cyanide contaminant which is to be decomposed by oxidation (col 3 ln 40-44). However, Branchick does not disclose an organic contaminant (note, despite containing carbon, cyanide is an inorganic species). Branchick also does not specifically disclose an electrolyte containing both copper and another metal other than copper.
Downes is similarly directed to an apparatus and method for electrochemical remediation of copper plating waste by reducing copper onto the cathode and decomposing other contaminants by electrochemical oxidation (col 2 ln 38-63; the device is described in more detail at col 6 ln 38-62 and figure 1). Downes teaches that the other contaminants may include organic complexing agents, as these are a common constituent of copper plating waste (col 3 ln 38-68), and such organic contaminants be broken down by their apparatus by electrolytic oxidation at a pH between 1.8 and 4.0 (col 5 ln 58 - col 6 ln 38).
Wimbish is directed to an apparatus and method for electrochemical treatment of aqueous plating wastes, wherein the aqueous solution to be treated comprises both copper and another metal (namely silver; col 1 ln 55 - col 2 ln 43) wherein the other metal is recovered by deposition on the cathode (col 3 ln 5, "Silver is electroplated onto cathodes").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to broaden the utility of the electrochemical apparatus of Branchick, which is used to remove copper values and other contaminants from aqueous plating wastes, by applying it to a plating waste that comprises either or both of:
- a metal other than copper reductively adsorbed at the cathode, as taught by Wimbush (col 1 ln 55 - col 2 ln 43), and
- an organic contaminant that is to be oxidized, as taught in Downes (col 3 ln 38-68, col 5 ln 58 - col 6 ln 38).
Such application broadens the usefulness of Branchick's device by allowing it to remediate a broader set of wastewaters, and such modification could be made predictably and with reasonable expectation of success, based on Wimbush's teaching that a plating wastewater containing both copper and another metal can be remediated by a similar electrochemical device (col 1 ln 55 - col 2 ln 43), and Downes' teaching that a plating wastewater containing both copper and an organic contaminant can be remediated by a similar electrochemical device (col 2 ln 38-63; col 3 ln 38-68; col 6 ln 38-62 and figure 1). The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one electrolyte composition for another) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., effective removal of contaminants from the electrolyte) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding claim 24, modified Branchick renders obvious the apparatus of claim 22, and Branchick further teaches the electrochemical cell is a flow-through electrochemical cell elongated in shape (col 1 ln 10-19 and col 11 ln 37-40, electrolyte flows through the cell; figure 1, electrochemical cell 10 is elongated in shape), and wherein the inlet is at one end of the electrochemical cell (figure 1, inlet 12 is at one end of the elongated cell) and the outlet at the other end of the electrochemical cell (figure 1, outlet 13 is at the opposite end from inlet 12).
Regarding claim 25, modified Branchick renders obvious the apparatus of claim 22, and Branchick further teaches the anode and the cathode are made of a porous conductive material (col 5 ln 24-40, the anode is made of porous conductive material such as a carbon plate with perforations in it; col 6 ln 3-14, the cathode is made of a porous reticulated foam coated with a conductive coating).
Regarding claim 27, modified Branchick renders obvious the apparatus of claim 22, and Branchick further teaches the anode and the cathode each permeably occlude one end of the electrochemical cell towards the inlet and the outlet (figure 1, permeable anodes 16 and cathodes 17 each occlude the cross section of the electrochemical cell thereby forcing electrolyte to flow through them rather than around them; the anode 16 and cathode 17 positioned near the inlet 12 occlude the inlet, and the anode 16 and cathode 17 positioned near the outlet 13 occlude the outlet).
Claims 26, 28, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branchick as applied to claim 22 above, in view of US 4,556,469 A to Kim et al (hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding claim 26, modified Branchick renders obvious the apparatus of claim 22, but Branchick does not teach the anode and the cathode are made of graphite felt or carbon felt.
Kim is similarly directed to a flow through electrochemical cell for treatment of metal-contaminated wastewaters such as aqueous plating waste solutions (col 2 ln 25-39). Kim's device comprises:
- an electrochemical cell (figure 1-2 cell 20) comprising
- an anode made of carbon felt (figure 3, anode is made of anode backing grid 50 overlaid with anode felt 42; col 4 ln 27-28, "a flow-through anode 42 which may comprise porous carbon, a carbon fiber felt mass"; col 5 ln 59-60, "an electrolytic cell with carbon felt anode and cathode"),
- a cathode made of carbon felt (figure 3, cathode comprises conductive grid 51 and porous felt material 44 disposed thereon, contained between insulating plastic filter discs 53; col 3 ln 65 - col 4 ln 6, "In the cathode there is disposed a felt mass of conductive fibers. These fibers may comprise material such as carbon fibers"; col 5 ln 59-60, "an electrolytic cell with carbon felt anode and cathode"), and an electrolyte, the electrolyte contacting the anode and the cathode (wastewater flows vertically through the cell of figure 3, contacting the flow-through anode felt and cathode felt as it transits);
- an inlet allowing the electrolyte in the electrochemical cell, and an outlet allowing purified water out of the electrochemical cell (col 3 ln 50-52; figure 3, the top and bottom end plates each contain a port 62, so that water can flow into out one of these two ports and out the other).
Kim teaches that the ideal electrode material for treating heavy metal-contaminated industrial wastewaters must have a high electrochemically active surface area, a high pore volume to minimize flow restriction, and must be able to withstand high levels of metal loading before being exhausted (col 1 ln 30-44). Kim teaches that their cell with carbon felt anode and cathode materials is well adapted to this application (col 5 ln 20-64, col 6 ln 36-63).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Branchick's cell by making the anode(s) and cathode(s) out of carbon felt materials, because Kim, who is directed to same application of a flow through electrochemical cell which treats metal-contaminated waste waters by electroplating out the metal ions, teaches that carbon felt makes for an effective anode and cathode material in this application. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding claim 28, modified Branchick renders obvious the apparatus of claim 22, but Branchick does not teach a reference electrode.
Kim is similarly directed to a flow through electrochemical cell for treatment of metal-contaminated wastewaters such as aqueous plating waste solutions (col 2 ln 25-39). Kim's device comprises:
- an electrochemical cell (figure 1-2 cell 20) comprising
- an anode (figure 3, anode is made of anode backing grid 50 overlaid with anode felt 42; col 5 ln 59-60, "carbon felt anode and cathode"),
- a cathode (figure 3, cathode comprises conductive grid 51 and porous felt material 44 thereon, contained between insulating plastic filter discs 53; col 3 ln 65 - col 4 ln 6, "the cathode ... a felt mass of conductive fibers ... such as carbon fibers"), and an electrolyte, the electrolyte contacting the anode and the cathode (wastewater flows vertically through the cell of figure 3, contacting the flow-through anode felt and cathode felt as it transits);
- an inlet allowing the electrolyte in the electrochemical cell, and an outlet allowing purified water out of the electrochemical cell (col 3 ln 50-52; figure 3, the top and bottom end plates each contain a port 62, so that water can flow into out one of these two ports and out the other)
- and a reference electrode (figure 2, reference electrodes 34 and 35; col 6 ln 23-42). Kim teaches that the reference electrode provides a useful point of reference which can be monitored to detect changes in internal cell voltages (col 6 ln 23-42, "reference electrodes 35 and 34 may be placed ... to monitor voltage levels ... In particular, increases in voltage V1 or V2 may be employed to indicate that the cathode needs replacement").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Branchick by adding a reference electrode, so that the cathode voltage can be compared against a reference voltage for the purpose of monitoring the cathode lifetime and detecting a failing cathode, as taught in Kim (col 6 ln 23-24). Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)].
Regarding claim 34, modified Branchick renders obvious the apparatus of claim 22, but Branchick does not teach the apparatus comprises several electrochemical cells in parallel.
Kim is similarly directed to a flow through electrochemical cell for treatment of metal-contaminated wastewaters such as aqueous plating waste solutions (col 2 ln 25-39). Kim's device comprises:
- one or more electrochemical cells (figure 1-2 cell 20) comprising
- an anode (figure 3, anode is made of anode backing grid 50 overlaid with anode felt 42; col 5 ln 59-60, "carbon felt anode and cathode"),
- a cathode (figure 3, cathode comprises conductive grid 51 and porous felt material 44 thereon, contained between insulating plastic filter discs 53; col 3 ln 65 - col 4 ln 6, "the cathode ... a felt mass of conductive fibers ... such as carbon fibers"), and an electrolyte, the electrolyte contacting the anode and the cathode (wastewater flows vertically through the cell of figure 3, contacting the flow-through anode felt and cathode felt as it transits);
- an inlet allowing the electrolyte in the electrochemical cell, and an outlet allowing purified water out of the electrochemical cell (col 3 ln 50-52; figure 3, the top and bottom end plates each contain a port 62, so that water can flow into out one of these two ports and out the other).
Kim further teaches that the apparatus may comprise a plurality of such cells in parallel (figure 2 "optional parallel cells"; col 3 ln 18-23; col 5 ln 20-23, " An electrochemical reactor comprising four individual cells (two in series and two in parallel) was assembled"), and that such a configuration would have the benefit that it would allow the operator to shut down one cell for electrode replacement while continuing to treat water with one or more other cells (col 3 ln 18-23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Branchick by incorporating a plurality of electrochemical cells in parallel, so that the device can operate at a higher throughput and so that the operator can take one of the plural parallel cells offline for maintenance while continuing to treat wastewater with the other cell(s) as taught in Kim (col 3 ln 18-23). The incorporation of a predictable improvement into a known base invention, based on a finding that the prior art contained a comparable device that has been improved in the same way, is prima facie obvious as being part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (MPEP 2143(C)).
Claims 29 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Branchick as applied to claim 22 above, in view of US 2002/0185446 A1 to Arnaud (hereinafter "Arnaud").
Regarding claim 29, modified Branchick renders obvious the apparatus of claim 22. Branchick further teaches electrolyte is mobilized through the electrochemical cell (col 11 ln 37-40). However, Branchick does not specifically disclose a pump for mobilizing the electrolyte through the cell.
Arnaud is similarly directed to a flow through electrochemical cell for treating metal-contaminated water streams such as plating wastes (para [001], [0019]-[0022]). Arnaud's apparatus comprises an electrochemical cell (figure 1, EC reactor 4; para [0075]-[0083], figure 8-14 illustrate the electrochemical cell structure) comprising an anode and a cathode (figure 9-11 and para [0077]-[0079], the cell comprises two electrodes 55 and 59 which alternate between being anode and cathode), and an electrolyte, the electrolyte contacting the anode and the cathode (figure 9-11, wastewater stream 54 which contacts the two electrodes); an inlet allowing the electrolyte in the electrochemical cell (figure 9-10, inlet 53); and an outlet allowing purified water out of the electrochemical cell (figure 9-10, outlet 58).
Arnaud further teaches a pump for mobilizing the electrolyte through the electrochemical cell (figure 1, system pump 25; para [0044]-[0047], [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a pump to implement the function of mobilizing wastewater through the electrochemical cell of Branchick, based on Arnaud's teaching that a pump is a suitable structure for performing the function of mobilizing metal plating wastewater through a wastewater treatment cell (figure 1, system pump 25; para [0044]-[0047], [0061]). The claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)]. The selection of a known component, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding claims 31 and 32, modified Branchick in further view of Arnaud renders the apparatus of claim 29 obvious. Branchick does not teach one or more sensors for detecting one or more characteristics of the electrolyte entering the electrochemical cell and/or one or more characteristics of the purified water exiting the electrochemical cell, and does not teach a microcomputer.
Arnaud is similarly directed to a flow through electrochemical cell for treating metal-contaminated water streams such as plating wastes (para [001], [0019]-[0022]). Arnaud's apparatus comprises an electrochemical cell (figure 1, EC reactor 4; para [0075]-[0083], figure 8-14 illustrate the electrochemical cell structure) comprising an anode and a cathode (figure 9-11 and para [0077]-[0079], the cell comprises two electrodes 55 and 59 which alternate between being anode and cathode), and an electrolyte, the electrolyte contacting the anode and the cathode (figure 9-11, wastewater stream 54 which contacts the two electrodes); an inlet allowing the electrolyte in the electrochemical cell (figure 9-10, inlet 53); and an outlet allowing purified water out of the electrochemical cell (figure 9-10, outlet 58).
Arnaud further teaches a sensor for detecting a characteristic of the electrolyte entering the electrochemical cell (figure 1-2, pH sensor 24; para [0061], "controller 3 monitors the pH of the incoming wastewater via pH sensor 24"), and a plurality of sensors for detecting characteristics of the purified water exiting the electrochemical cell (figure 1-2, sensors 11, 12, 13, and 14; para [0063], "controller 3 monitors the flow, temperature, pressure, and pH of the treated wastewater as it leaves the EC reactor 4 and container 6 via temperature sensor 11, flow sensor 12, pressure sensor 14, and pH sensor 13"), and a microcomputer in operative combination with the sensors (figure 1-2, para [0027], "a programmable logic controller"; para [0044]-[0050], controller #3; para [0063], "The controller 3 monitors ... temperature sensor 11, flow sensor 12, pressure sensor 14, and pH sensor 13").
Arnaud teaches that the sensors enable the apparatus to monitor characteristics of the treated water, and adjust the flow rate or electrochemical cell voltage based on the sensor output (para [0063]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cell of Branchick to incorporate one or more sensors on the influent wastewater line and/or effluent treated water line, and a microcomputer connected to the sensors, for the purpose of monitoring characteristics of the water and adjusting flow rate or cell voltage in order to maintain effluent water quality in a target range as taught in Arnaud. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)].
Regarding claim 33, modified Branchick in further view of Arnaud renders the apparatus of claim 32 obvious, and Arnaud further teaches the microcomputer monitors the one or more characteristics detected by the one or more sensors, provides feedback as needed to the pump to adjust the electrolyte flow rate and/or to a voltage source to adjust the electrical potential applied to the electrodes, to maximize purified water throughput at a given output water quality (para [0063], "The controller 3 monitors the flow, temperature, pressure, and pH of the treated wastewater as it leaves the EC reactor 4 and container 6 via temperature sensor 11, flow sensor 12, pressure sensor 14, and pH sensor 13. If desired levels are not met, the controller adjusts the flow rate of the wastewater or the voltage of the DC voltage source until the desired output levels are met").
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks filed November 12, 2024), with respect to the two §102 rejections of claim 22, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new §103 grounds of rejection are made based on the same references.
Applicant's amendments to claim 22 further recite that the electrolyte has a pH in the range of from about 1 to about 12. Applicant argues that Gordy does not anticipate the amended claim because Gordy's does not teach that their electrolyte has a pH in the recited range, and Gordy's electrolyte, which contains concentrated strong acid, is expected to have a pH of less than 1.
Applicant's argument is persuasive; the §102 rejection based on Gordy is withdrawn. New §103 grounds are presented based on Gordy, in view of the teaching from Pimentel that an ideal pH for electro-Fenton oxidation with copper catalyst is a pH of 3.
Applicant's amendments to claim 22 further recite that the electrolyte contains one or both of: an organic contaminant that is oxidized, and/or a metal other than copper that is reductively adsorbed at the cathode. Applicant argues that Branchick does not anticipate the amended claim because Branchick's electrolyte contains neither of these.
Applicant's argument is persuasive; the §103 rejection based on Branchick is withdrawn. New §103 grounds are presented, based on Branchick's disclosure of an electrochemical apparatus for treating copper-containing plating wastes, in view of Downes' teaching that such plating wastes can contain an organic contaminant which is broken down by oxidation, and in view of Wimbish's teaching that such plating wastes can contain a second metal which is removed from solution by reductive adsorption onto the cathode.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Andrew R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Luan V Van can be reached on (571) 272-8521. 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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795