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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 30, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been considered, but are considered unpersuasive. Amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous rejection using newly found secondary reference Li et al., (“Li”, US 2015/0041333).
On page 6 of the Remarks section as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the previous interview held October 15, 2025. Next, on pages 6-8, Applicant argues against the previous prior art rejection in regards to the claimed invention and the amendment newly added. Applicant first describes the action of elimination of wastewater contaminants via electrochemical oxidation , contrasting this action with Examiner’s position. Applicant argued that the term ‘eliminate’, as also laid out in the previous Declaration, is understood to mean chemical destruction, not removal by electro-physical precipitation. Applicant continues to characterize the combination of primary reference Craft (US 2003/0127391 A1), and secondary reference Behr, (US 2009/0242424), as “electro-physical precipitation”, not electrochemical oxidation. Here, the Examiner notes that secondary reference Behr is explicitly relied upon to demonstrate electrochemical oxidation and the elimination or removal of soluble and insoluble compounds, (See paragraph [0040] & [0055], [0035], [0067], Behr). While the references discuss the settling of materials or precipitate, Behr does demonstrate destroying compounds. Since the new limitation requires no precipitate formation, the Examiner has combined new secondary reference Li to demonstrate destruction of both organic and inorganic solutes. The Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here moot as a result.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that the newly added limitation “eliminating the soluble and insoluble compounds in the absence of precipitate formation” is supported in the instant Specification because the Specification discloses the need to provide wastewater treatment systems that do not produce secondary pollution. The Examiner notes that the term “secondary pollution” from a wastewater treatment system is broad. The term “system” is expansive and can extend to multiple steps within a process in which each step is assigned to carry out a different function. At the end of the overall process, there can be no ‘secondary pollution’ if that is the goal by providing different steps or treatment units to remove different pollutants each. The excerpt described by Applicant does not mean that no pollutant can be generated in the end product of one sole reactor or treatment unit. There is nowhere in the instant Specification showing “no precipitate formation” or zero pollutant/precipitate formation in the electrochemical reactor. The Examiner finds these remarks by Applicant unpersuasive as a result. The Examiner considers the addition of this new limitation to be new matter and rejected under 112(a) for doing so.
Applicant also argues that the type of electrode in the Specification used in the electrochemical reactors proves there is support for no precipitate generation. Applicant states that a BDD, dimensionally stable, electrode would not produce the sort of reactions that lead to production of pollutants or precipitate. The Examiner notes that it is not claimed to use a dimensionally stable or BDD electrode, and that it is not clear that no precipitate would be generated or formed because no evidence has been provided or language to that effect in the Specification. The Examiner also finds this remark unpersuasive.
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 1, 13, and their dependent claims 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.
Claims 1 & 13 recite the limitation “eliminating the soluble and insoluble compounds in the absence of precipitate formation”. However, there is no explicit support for this limitation in the instant Specification since this is a negative limitation. There is no discussion of precipitate formation in general. Thus, it is considered new matter.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craft, (US 2003/0127391 A1), in view of Behr, (US 2009/0242424), in further view of Li et al., (“Li”, US 2015/0041333).
Regarding claim 1, Craft discloses an electrochemical wastewater treatment system (cross flow filtration system uses electronic dispersion equipment that applies high voltage to produce electrostatic dispersion for enhanced precipitation of dissolved chemical substances (electrochemical treatment) in water from a cooling system (wastewater) to inhibit fouling, scaling and corrosion, par [0020], [0024]-[0025], [0030], [0056]) comprising:
- a reactor tank which receives a stream of wastewater to be treated which contains soluble and insoluble compounds (feed tank 13 receives water with dissolved calcium carbonate from side stream 12 of circulation loop 22, colloid particles for dissolved calcium carbonate to precipitate on, figure 1, par [0043-0048], dissolved and suspended matter, par [0004]);
an electrochemical reactor, (electronic dispersion equipment (electrochemical reactor) is located in the same side stream as cross flow filter 10, figure 1, par [0034]-[0035], [0045], [0052]);
- a separation device which receives an effluent wastewater stream from the reactor tank to generate a treated wastewater stream which is discharged from the system and a reject stream, which is at least partially supplied to the electrochemical reactor as a recirculated wastewater stream to increase the concentration of the soluble and insoluble compounds in the electrochemical reactor, (nanofiltration or reverse osmosis system polisher 40 (separation device) receives permeate from the water in feed tank 13 that is cross-filtered and electronically dispersed from stream 11 and filter 10 (reactor effluent) with reject retentate stream 17 recirculated back to tank 13 from the polisher 40, or reject 16 recirculated back to tank 13, and polished (treated wastewater) permeate stream discharged to stream 19 and cooling loop 22, figure 1, par [0050], [0052]),
- an electrochemical reactor treats the received recirculated wastewater stream by removing the soluble and insoluble compounds therein by electrochemical treatment, (electronic dispersion equipment (electrochemical reactor) is located in the same side stream as cross flow filter 10, figure 1, par [0034]-[0035], [0045], [0052]; and the recirculated reject retentate stream 17 from polisher 40 (separation device) returns to feed reactor tank 13 and/or the reject concentrate 16 returning to tank 13 is then treated again by the electronic dispersion unit and cross flow unit (electrochemical reactor) so that permeate stream 16 is treated again in polisher 40 and additional retentate reject is recirculated back to tank 13 via line 17, figure 1, par [0050], [0052], and polished (treated wastewater) permeate stream discharged to stream 19 and cooling loop 22, figure 1, par [0050], [0052]); and
wherein the electrochemical reactor generates a reactor effluent stream which is fed back to the reactor tank to increase the concentration of soluble and insoluble compounds in the reactor tank, (the recirculated reject retentate stream 17 from polisher 40 (separation device) returns to feed reactor tank 13 and/or the reject concentrate 16 returning to tank 13 is then treated again by the electronic dispersion unit and cross flow unit (electrochemical reactor) so that permeate stream 16 is treated again in polisher 40 and additional retentate reject is recirculated back to tank 13 via line 17, figure 1, par [0050], [0052]; Examiner notes that returning concentrate/reject/retentate or effluent to a vessel will increase the concentration of the compounds in question of the vessel since the concentrate/reject/retentate or effluent has an increased level of said compounds).
However, Craft does not disclose electrochemical oxidation as the electrochemical treatment and eliminating the soluble and insoluble compounds therein by the electrochemical oxidation, in the absence of precipitate formation.
However, Behr discloses electrochemical treatment of wastewater (See Abstract and paragraph [0040], Behr). Behr also discloses electrochemical treatment of wastewater which includes electrochemical oxidation and eliminating the soluble and insoluble compounds therein by the electrochemical oxidation (See paragraph [0040] & [0055], [0035], [0067], Behr).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate electrochemical oxidation and eliminating the soluble and insoluble compounds therein by the electrochemical oxidation like that of Behr into the electrochemical wastewater treatment system of Craft so that “the amount of colloid particles are reduced” using “electrodes”, (See paragraph [0053], Behr), in the “electrochemical cell”, (See paragraph [0055], Behr), while also incorporating “an electrostatic rod…for better coagulation”, (See paragraph [0039], Behr), such that “no hazardous materials in the form of chemicals have to be stored and the operating costs are limited”, resulting in a “clean, cost effective…and quick” separation process, (See paragraph [0033], Behr), when applied to treating cooling water in both Craft and Behr, (See Abstract, Craft; and See paragraph [0011], Behr).
Modified Craft does not explicitly disclose eliminating the soluble and insoluble compounds in the absence of precipitate formation.
Li discloses eliminating the soluble and insoluble compounds in the absence of precipitate formation, (See paragraph [0001], [0022], Li).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate eliminating the soluble and insoluble compounds in the absence of precipitate formation of Li into the electrochemical wastewater treatment system of modified Craft so that it will “destroy the…undesirable solutes….which will permit the treated water to be discharged to the environment without any further treatment to remove the undesirable solutes”, (See paragraph [0022], Li), which is “extremely efficient”, (See paragraph [0022], Li).
Regarding claim 8, modified Craft discloses the wastewater treatment system of claim 1 wherein the separation device comprises a reverse osmosis membrane, a nanofiltration membrane, or an ultrafiltration membrane, for filtrating the compounds in the wastewater (polisher 40 (separation unit) includes either a nanofilter, ultrafilter, or reverse osmosis membrane separation process, figure 1, par [0050], Craft).
Regarding claim 9, modified Craft discloses the wastewater treatment system of claim 8 wherein the separation device controls the concentration of compounds in the reject stream (a reverse osmosis or nanofiltration type membrane is selected to retain the dissolved calcium carbonate in a reject solution at a controlled concentration that is circulated through the cross flow filtration loop in order to precipitate and remove the calcium carbonate while allowing polished calcium carbonate-free water to circulate back to the cooling tower, figure 1, par [0046], [0050], Craft).
Regarding claim 10, modified Craft discloses the wastewater treatment system of claim 1 further comprising a device for storing and delivering to the reactor tank a solution for increasing a wastewater conductivity, a solution for controlling a pH of the wastewater, and/or a membrane descaling solution (a chemical feed system is used to add precipitant 31 to feed tank 13 for controlling pH to enhance precipitation of salts and silica that can cause scaling, par [0047], figure 1, Craft).
Regarding claim 11, modified Craft discloses the wastewater treatment system of claim 1 further comprising a conditioning tank which receives a predetermined amount of the stream of wastewater to be treated before it is supplied to the reactor tank and the recirculated wastewater stream supplied from the separation device (water with dissolved calcium carbonate from the cooling tower enters the cooling water circulation fixed volume piping loop 22 (conditioning tank with predetermined amount of wastewater) before an amount is diverted via stream 12 to reactor tank 13 which also contains recirculated wastewater from separation device polisher 40 via stream 17, figure 1, par [0043], [0050], Craft), wherein in the conditioning tank the wastewater to be treated is mixed with the recirculated wastewater stream and it is treated to remove specific compounds (the recirculated wastewater from stream 17 passes through tank 13 and a portion is removed as permeate via loop 16, which is returned to circulation loop 22, which is then treated with biological control 42 to remove specific biological fouling compounds, figure 1, par [0043], [0054], Craft).
Claims 2-5 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craft (US 2003/0127391 A1), as evidenced by LucidChart (P&ID Symbols), in view of Behr, (US 2009/0242424), in further view of Li et al., (“Li”, US 2015/0041333).
Regarding claim 2, modified Craft discloses the wastewater treatment system of claim 1 further comprising a valve for adjusting the volume of the reject stream or of the recirculated wastewater stream for controlling the concentration of soluble and insoluble compounds in the electrochemical reactor (various valves and pumps in figure 1, as evidenced by LucidChart for P&ID symbols with pump symbols on pages 6-7 and valve symbols on page 9, the reject stream 17 from polisher 40 can be split and the ratio of the discharged flow to the recycled portion flow volume is controlled back to the tank 13 so that the flow from the electronic dispersion and cross flow filtration steps (electrochemical reactor) controls the concentration of chemical constituents that could foul the polishing separation unit, figure 1, par [0050], Craft).
Regarding claim 3, modified Craft discloses the wastewater treatment system of claim 1 further comprising a blowdown stream, which discharges from the system a portion of the reject stream, and a valve for adjusting the volume of the blowdown stream (the flow from tank 13, which includes some reject flow 17 from polisher 40, is split into side streams including concentrate stream 32, which includes blowdown streams to discharge a portion from the system, and another portion to dewatering system 33, where control of flow volumes for removal through line 32 is accomplished with valves in the side stream lines, abstract, figure 1, par [0025], [0048], Craft, as evidenced by the valve symbols from LucidChart on page 9).
Regarding claim 4, modified Craft discloses the wastewater treatment system of claim 1 further comprising a blowdown stream which discharges from the system a portion of the wastewater contained in the reactor tank and a valve for adjusting the volume of the blowdown stream (the flow of wastewater from tank 13 is split into side streams including concentrate stream 32, which includes blowdown streams to discharge a portion of the wastewater from the system, and another portion to dewatering system 33, where control of flow volumes for removal through line 32 is accomplished with valves in the side stream lines, abstract, figure 1, par [0025], [0048], Craft, as evidenced by the valve symbols from LucidChart on page 9).
Regarding claim 5, modified Craft as evidenced by LucidChart discloses the wastewater treatment system of claims 3 or 4 (this prior art rejection works depending from either claim 3 or 4) wherein the blowdown stream and the treated wastewater stream are combined into a treated water stream before being discharged from the system (a portion of the blowdown streams from stream 32 are passed through dewatering system 33 and back to tank 13 via stream 41, and portions from tank 13 then pass through cross flow filter 10 into cross flow filter loop 16, which mixes with treated wastewater stream 19 before being discharged from the treatment system back into ci
Regarding claim 13, Craft discloses a method for treating wastewater which contains soluble and insoluble compounds in an electrochemical reactor (reactor/precipitator to remove dissolved and suspended matter, precipitation of calcium salts and silica in feed tank 13, which means calcium salts are dissolved at first, par [0034], a method of cross flow filtration using electronic dispersion equipment that applies high voltage to produce electrostatic dispersion for enhanced precipitation of dissolved chemical substances (electrochemical treatment) in water from a cooling system (wastewater) to inhibit fouling, scaling and corrosion, par [0020], [0024]-[0025], [0030], [0041], [0056]) comprising the steps of:
a. supplying the wastewater to be treated to a reactor tank and discharging an effluent wastewater stream from the reactor tank (feed (reactor) tank 13 receives water with dissolved calcium carbonate (wastewater) from side stream 12 of circulation loop 22, and contents of tank 13 are discharged as effluent through pump 15; figure 1; paragraph [0043);
b. supplying the effluent wastewater stream from the reactor tank to a separation device where the effluent wastewater stream is concentrated to generate a treated wastewater stream and a reject stream which contains the soluble and insoluble compounds which were rejected by the separation device (a portion of the effluent from tank 13 passes through crossflow filter 10 as permeate stream 16 which can be concentrated in polisher 40 (separation device) to generate a treated permeate wastewater stream 19, and a reject stream 17 with concentrated compounds from stream 16 that were rejected by the filtration membrane in polisher 40, figure 1, par [0043], [0050]);
c. supplying the entire reject stream or a portion thereof to an electrochemical reactor as a recirculated wastewater stream (the recirculated reject retentate stream 17 from polisher 40 (separation device) returns to feed reactor tank 13 and/or the reject concentrate 16 returning to tank 13 is then treated again by the electronic dispersion unit and cross flow unit (electrochemical reactor) so that permeate stream 16 is treated again in polisher 40 and additional retentate reject is recirculated back to tank 13 via line 17, figure 1, par [0050], [0052]);
d. electrochemically treating the recirculated wastewater in the electrochemical reactor to remove the soluble and insoluble compounds therein by electrochemical treatment and generating a reactor effluent stream of electrochemically treated water (electronic dispersion equipment applies high voltage to produce electrostatic dispersion for enhanced precipitation of dissolved chemical substances (electrochemical treatment) may be located in the same side stream as cross flow filter 10 (electrochemical reactor), which treats the recirculated wastewater stream 17 that is returned to tank 13, and generates treated permeate effluent 16 and retentate effluent stream 11, figure 1, par [0045], [0050], [0052]);
e. supplying the reactor effluent stream from the electrochemical reactor to the reactor tank to increase the concentration of soluble and insoluble compounds in the reactor tank, (effluent retentate stream from crossflow filter and associated electronic dispersion equipment is returned via stream 11 to tank 13, figure 1, par [0043], [0050]; Examiner notes that returning effluent to a vessel will increase the concentration of the compounds in question of the vessel since the effluent has an increased level of said compounds);
f. controlling the volume of the reject stream or of the recirculated wastewater stream to increase the concentration of soluble and insoluble compounds in the electrochemical reactor, (the recirculated reject retentate stream 17 from polisher 40 (separation device) returns to feed reactor tank 13 and/or the reject concentrate 16 returning to tank 13 is then treated again by the electronic dispersion unit and cross flow unit (electrochemical reactor) so that permeate stream 16 is treated again in polisher 40 and additional retentate reject is recirculated back to tank 13 via line 17, figure 1, par [0050], [0052]; Examiner notes that returning concentrate/reject/retentate to a vessel will increase the concentration of the compounds in question of the vessel since the concentrate/reject/retentate has an increased level of said compounds, and the valves and pump symbols in figure 1 for are controlling flow, as evidenced by LucidChart, pump symbols on pages 6-7 and valve symbols on page 9), and
g. discharging the treated wastewater stream (the polished treated wastewater stream 19 from polisher 40 is discharged into the cooling water circulation loop 22, figure 1, par [0050]).
However, Craft does not disclose electrochemical oxidation as the electrochemical treatment in which the electrochemical oxidation eliminates the soluble and insoluble compounds therein, in the absence of precipitate formation.
Behr discloses electrochemical treatment of wastewater (See Abstract and paragraph [0040], Behr). Behr also discloses electrochemical treatment of wastewater which includes electrochemical oxidation in which the electrochemical oxidation eliminates the soluble and insoluble compounds therein (See paragraph [0040] & [0055], [0035], [0067], Behr).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate electrochemical oxidation in which the electrochemical oxidation eliminates the soluble and insoluble compounds therein like that of Behr into the electrochemical wastewater treatment system of Craft so that “the amount of colloid particles are reduced” using “electrodes”, (See paragraph [0053], Behr), in the “electrochemical cell”, (See paragraph [0055], Behr), while also incorporating “an electrostatic rod…for better coagulation”, (See paragraph [0039], Behr), such that “no hazardous materials in the form of chemicals have to be stored and the operating costs are limited”, resulting in a “clean, cost effective…and quick” separation process, (See paragraph [0033], Behr), when applied to treating cooling water in both Craft and Behr, (See Abstract, Craft; and See paragraph [0011], Behr).
Modified Craft does not explicitly disclose eliminating the soluble and insoluble compounds in the absence of precipitate formation.
Li discloses eliminating the soluble and insoluble compounds in the absence of precipitate formation, (See paragraph [0001], [0022], Li).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate eliminating the soluble and insoluble compounds in the absence of precipitate formation of Li into the electrochemical wastewater treatment system of modified Craft so that it will “destroy the…undesirable solutes….which will permit the treated water to be discharged to the environment without any further treatment to remove the undesirable solutes”, (See paragraph [0022], Li), which is “extremely efficient”, (See paragraph [0022], Li).
Regarding claim 14, modified Craft as evidenced by LucidChart discloses the method of claim 13 further comprising discharging a portion of the reject stream as a blowdown stream to further control the concentration of soluble and insoluble compounds in the electrochemical reactor (the flow from tank 13, which includes a portion of reject stream 17 from polisher 40, is split into side streams including concentrate stream 32, which includes blowdown streams to discharge one portion, and another portion to dewatering system 33, where control of flow volumes for removal through line 32 is accomplished with valves in the side stream lines, such that the concentration of dissolved compounds within the cross flow filtration system with the electronic dispersion apparatus (electrochemical reactor) retentate is determined by the rate that substances are removed through the blowdown streams, abstract, figure 1, par [0025], [0048], [0052], Craft).
Regarding claim 15, modified Craft as evidenced by LucidChart discloses the method of claim 13 further comprising discharging a portion of the wastewater contained in the reactor tank as a blowdown stream to further control the concentration of soluble and insoluble compounds in the electrochemical reactor (the flow from tank 13 is split into side streams including concentrate stream 32, which includes blowdown streams to discharge one portion, and another portion to dewatering system 33, where control of flow volumes for removal through line 32 is accomplished with valves in the side stream lines, such that the concentration of dissolved compounds within the cross flow filtration system with the electronic dispersion apparatus (electrochemical reactor) retentate is determined by the rate that substances are removed through the blowdown streams, abstract, figure 1, par [0025], [0048], [0052], Craft).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craft (US 2003/0127391 A1), in view of Behr, (US 2009/0242424), in further view of Li et al., (“Li”, US 2015/0041333), and in further view of Deane (US 4,198,294).
Regarding claim 12, modified Craft discloses the wastewater treatment system of claim 11 further comprising a pump which supplies the wastewater to the separation device (pump that feeds polisher 40 (separator), figure 1, par [0043], [0050], Craft), but does not explicitly disclose a membrane feed tank which receives the effluent wastewater stream from the reactor tank.
However, Deane discloses reclaiming/treating wastewater with electrochemical means (Col. 9, lines 5-25, claim 7). Deane also discloses a membrane feed tank (froth tank 29, figure 1, Col. 8, lines 10-32) which receives the effluent wastewater stream from the reactor tank (water flows from reactor 18 to froth tank 29, Col. 7, lines 61-65, figure 1) and a pump which supplies the wastewater from the membrane feed tank to the separation device (pump 42 supplies water to filter 43, Col. 8, lines 10-20, figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feed tank of Deane into the system of modified Craft because, according to Deane, soils and suspended matter can be removed by settling before entering the filter (Col. 3, lines 45-51) and this applies to Craft since Craft discloses adding coagulants to the suspended solids.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Legzdins (US 9,890,064 B2) discloses electrochemical treatment of wastewater with electrochemical oxidation (Col. 1, lines 6-11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779