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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 03/12/2026. Claims 1, 4-5, 9-14, 16, 19-20, and 23-32 are pending in the current office action. Of these, claims 10-11 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 and 19 were amended by applicant. Claims 26-32 are new claims.
Status of the Rejection
The rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 9, 12-14, 16, 19-20, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
New rejections are necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 3 recites “containing contaminant comprising”, but should recite “containing a contaminant comprising” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 19 line 9 recites “containing contaminant comprising”, but should recite “containing a contaminant comprising” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 12-13, 19-20, and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0185351 A1) in view of Barisci et al. (“Electrooxidation of short and long chain perfluorocarboxylic acids using boron doped diamond electrodes” Chemosphere 243 (2020) 125349) and Wylie (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0174942 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a flow-through electrochemical reactor (“REM [reactive electrochemical membrane] system” Fig. 26 and para. 76), comprising:
a housing including a solution flow-path (see Figs. 23-25) in fluid communication with a source of water containing a contaminant comprising perfluorinated compounds to be treated (“a reservoir for containing an aqueous solution or other substance contaminated with PFASs” para. 66, “A solution containing PFAS (e.g., PFOA and/or PFOS) in a supporting electrolyte (e.g., 10 mM Na2SO4) was pumped through the REM cell” para. 71 and see Fig. 23);
a first electrode (“the inner membrane serves as the anodic membrane for oxidation of PFASs and TCE,” para. 76 and Fig. 26) comprising boron doped diamond (“The porous Ti4O7 ceramic, Ti/SnO2-Sb/Ce-PbO2 (CePbO2), or Ti/BDD (BDD) electrode was used as the anode.” para. 93 and Table 5) disposed within the solution flow-path (Id.), the first electrode having a hollow cylindrical shape (“concentric tubular … membranes” Id.); and
a second electrode (“the outer membrane cathodic membrane rejects or reduces chlorate” para. 76 and Fig. 26) having a hollow cylindrical shape (“concentric tubular … membranes” Id.), the electrodes being arranged concentrically (Id.), the first electrode being located within a wall of the second electrode (Id.), the second electrode being spaced apart from the first electrode creating an electroactive gap between the first electrode as an anode and the second electrode as a cathode (“inner membrane serves as the anodic membrane … outer membrane cathodic membrane” para. 76), the electroactive gap being 5 mm (“tubular Ti4O7/ACF membrane (2-cm radius, 10-cm length) operated as the anode” and “tubular Ti4O7 ceramic membrane (2.5-cm inner radius, 11-cm length) as the cathode” para. 168), a value touching the claimed range,
wherein application of electricity drives chemical reactions causing oxidation and reduction of the perfluorinated compounds (para. 128 and see below).
A range in the prior art touching a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding the limitation “wherein application of electricity drives chemical reactions causing oxidation and reduction of the perfluorinated compounds”, this limitation, as currently drafted, is a functional limitation. I.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does rather than what it is. The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of an apparatus limited by a functional recitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2115).
In the instant case, Huang explicitly teaches the system drives chemical reactions causing oxidation of perfluorinated compounds upon application of electricity (para. 128). While Huang does not explicitly teach teaches the system drives chemical reactions causing reduction of the perfluorinated compounds upon application of electricity, Huang teaches the system comprises a section for the reduction of trichloroethylene (TCE) (para. 75), and the cathode comprises Magneli-phase titanium oxide (para. 76) or stainless steel (para. 95), materials the instant specification indicates are suitable for the reduction of PFAS upon application of electricity (para. 18).
It is therefore considered that the system of Huang is necessarily capable of driving chemical reactions causing oxidation and reduction of the perfluorinated compounds upon application of electricity. Huang therefore reads on the limitation “wherein application of electricity drives chemical reactions causing oxidation and reduction of the perfluorinated compounds”.
Huang does not teach the second electrode comprises boron doped diamond (BDD).
However, Barisci teaches a method for the electrochemical remediation of perfluorinated compounds (abstract), wherein the cathode comprises BDD (“Si/BDD electrodes were used as anode and cathode.” § 2.2.).
Furthermore, Wylie teaches that using a diamond coating for both the anode and the cathode (paras. 50 and 65) in a flow-through electrolytic cell (Fig. 1 and abstract) provides the predictable benefit of allowing the cell to be operated with a periodic polarity reversal without damaging the cathode, thereby inhibiting scaling (abstract and paras. 8 and 65).
As both Huang and Barisci teach systems for the electrochemical remediation of perfluorinated compounds, Huang and Barisci are analogous art to the instant invention. As Wylie teaches a flow-through electrochemical cell comprising diamond coated electrodes for the degradation of contaminants in an aqueous solution, Wylie is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Huang, such that the cathode comprises BDD, as taught by Barisci. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this in order to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the polarity of the electrodes to be periodically reversed without damage, as taught by Wylie. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Huang further teaches the electrochemical gap may be between 1 and 15 mm (“an inter-electrode gap of 0.1 cm” para. 133 and “an interelectrode gap of 1.5 cm” para. 95) a range encompassing the claimed range (2.5-4 mm, claim 4) and value (3 mm, claim 5).
A range in the prior art encompassing a claimed range or value establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Huang further teaches an electrolyte solution in the solution flow path (“a supporting electrolyte (e.g., 10 mM Na2SO4)” para. 71).
Regarding claim 13, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Huang further teaches a power source connected to the first electrode and to the second electrode thereby creating an electrical circuit (“a 303DM DC power supply” para. 160 and Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 26, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Huang further teaches the perfluorinated compounds comprise per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (para. 5), perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) (para. 58) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) (Id.).
Regarding claim 27, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Huang further teaches the reactor comprises a contaminant sensor (“Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations were measured by a multi N/C UV TOC analyzer” para. 99).
Regarding claim 28, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Huang further teaches the first and second electrodes comprise a porous material (“a hybrid membrane made by coating activated carbon fiber (ACF)” para. 72 and “since both ACF and Ti4O7 are highly porous and conductive materials,” para. 73).
Regarding claim 19, Huang teaches a method of electrochemically treating a solution (title), the method comprising:
providing a first electrode (“the inner membrane serves as the anodic membrane for oxidation of PFASs and TCE,” para. 76 and Fig. 26) comprising boron doped diamond (“The porous Ti4O7 ceramic, Ti/SnO2-Sb/Ce-PbO2 (CePbO2), or Ti/BDD (BDD) electrode was used as the anode.” para. 93 and Table 5); and
a second electrode (“the outer membrane cathodic membrane rejects or reduces chlorate” para. 76 and Fig. 26);
both having a hollow cylindrical shape (“concentric tubular … membranes” para. 76 and Fig. 26),
the first electrode and the second electrode concentrically positioned (para. 76 and Fig. 26) 5 mm apart, a value touching the claimed range, such that the first electrode is located within a wall of and spaced apart from the second electrode thereby creating an electroactive gap between the solid first electrode and the second electrode (“tubular Ti4O7/ACF membrane (2-cm radius, 10-cm length) operated as the anode” and “tubular Ti4O7 ceramic membrane (2.5-cm inner radius, 11-cm length) as the cathode” para. 168 and Fig. 26);
applying power to the first electrode and to the second electrode (“the REM working electrode charged as the anode (-1.5-3.5 V vs. SHE)” para. 165 and Fig. 26); and
passing a solution containing a contaminant comprising perfluorinated compounds through the electroactive gap (“A solution containing PFAS (e.g., PFOA and/or PFOS) in a supporting electrolyte (e.g., 10 mM Na2SO4) was pumped through the REM cell” para. 71 and see Fig. 26) between the second electrode as a cathode (“the outer membrane cathodic membrane rejects or reduces chlorate” para. 76 and Fig. 26) and the first electrode as an (“the inner membrane serves as the anodic membrane for oxidation of PFASs and TCE,” para. 76 and Fig. 26), thereby electrochemically treating the contaminant comprising perfluorinated compounds via oxidation (para. 128) and reduction (“the outer membrane cathodic membrane … reduces chlorate” para. 76 and Fig. 26).
A value in the prior art touching a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Huang does not teach the second electrode comprises boron doped diamond (BDD).
Furthermore, Wylie teaches that using a diamond coating for both the anode and the cathode (paras. 50 and 65) in a flow-through electrolytic cell (Fig. 1 and abstract) provides the predictable benefit of allowing the cell to be operated with a periodic polarity reversal without damaging the cathode, thereby inhibiting scaling (abstract and paras. 8 and 65).
As both Huang and Barisci teach systems for the electrochemical remediation of perfluorinated compounds, Huang and Barisci are analogous art to the instant invention. As Wylie teaches a flow-through electrochemical cell comprising diamond coated electrodes for the degradation of contaminants in an aqueous solution, Wylie is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Huang, such that the cathode comprises BDD, as taught by Barisci. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this in order to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the polarity of the electrodes to be periodically reversed without damage, as taught by Wylie. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 20, Huang further teaches reducing contaminants on the second electrode (“the outer membrane cathodic membrane … reduces chlorate” para. 76 and Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 25, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Huang further teaches the electroactive gap may be as small as 1 mm (para. 133), a value indicated by the instant specification as sufficient to promote turbulent flow between the electrodes (see para. 66). It is therefore considered that Huang inherently teaches turbulent flow between the electrodes is promoted.
Regarding claim 29, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Huang further teaches the perfluorinated compounds comprise per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (para. 5), perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) (para. 58) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) (Id.).
Regarding claim 30, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Huang further teaches the first and second electrodes comprise a porous material (“a hybrid membrane made by coating activated carbon fiber (ACF)” para. 72 and “since both ACF and Ti4O7 are highly porous and conductive materials,” para. 73).
Regarding claims 31-32, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Huang further teaches adding a metal salt to the solution to promote indirect secondary oxidation (claim 31), wherein the metal salt comprises sodium chloride (claim 32) (“20 mM NaCl” and “20 mM NaClO4 with 20 mg L-1 NaCl” Table 6).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Barisci and Wylie, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eckelberry (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0122741 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Huang does not teach a wall of the second electrode has a plurality of openings.
However, Eckelberry teaches a fluid treatment system comprising a plurality of electrodes arranged concentrically within one another (“the inner electrode 410 configured as a cylinder that is centrally positioned within the outer electrode 420” para. 41 and Fig. 5), wherein the outer i.e., second, electrode has a plurality of openings (“apertures 430 comprise circular cutouts in the outer electrode 420.” Para. 43 and Fig. 5), that provides a fluid connection between the inter-electrode space and a housing (see Fig. 12).
As Eckelberry teaches a fluid treatment system comprising concentrically arranged electrodes, Eckelberry is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Huang, such that the second electrode has a plurality of openings, as taught by Eckelberry. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable result of allowing fluid to pass between a housing and the inter-electrode space, as taught by Eckelberry. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Barisci and Wylie, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagayoshi (JP 2001/300536 A).
Regarding claim 14, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Huang does not teach an inlet cap at a first end of the housing, the inlet cap maintaining proper relative spacing and alignment of the first and second electrodes.
However, Nagayoshi teaches a fluid treatment system (title) comprising a plurality of electrodes arranged concentrically within one another (abstract and Fig. 1), wherein a cap arranged at a first end of a housing maintains proper relative spacing and alignment of the electrodes (para. 33 and see Figs. 1 and 3).
As Nagayoshi teaches a fluid treatment system comprising concentrically arranged electrodes, Nagayoshi is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Huang by adding an inlet cap at a first end of the housing, the inlet cap maintaining proper relative spacing and alignment of the first and second electrodes, as taught by Nagayoshi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of maintaining the proper spacing and alignment of the electrodes, as taught by Nagayoshi. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Huang does not teach an adapter base inlet disposed at a first end of the housing, the adapter base providing plumbing and electrical connections while maintaining a pressure seal.
However, Nagayoshi teaches a fluid treatment system (title) comprising a plurality of electrodes arranged concentrically within one another (abstract and Fig. 1), wherein an adapter base inlet (comprising “synthetic resin cylinder (insulating material) 18” and “A synthetic resin cap 20” para. 30 and Fig. 1) is disposed at a first end of the housing (see Fig. 1), the adapter base providing plumbing and electrical connections (“A titanium pipe 21 is connected to the upper end of the second electrode 12 inside the cylindrical body 18, and the upper end of the titanium pipe 21 is opened to form a wastewater inlet” para. 31 and Fig. 1), providing the predictable benefit of allowing the pressure in the cell to be controlled (para. 22 and see para. 11) i.e., the base maintains a pressure seal.
As Nagayoshi teaches a fluid treatment system comprising concentrically arranged electrodes, Nagayoshi is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Huang, by adding an adapter base inlet disposed at a first end of the housing, the adapter base providing plumbing and electrical connections while maintaining a pressure seal, as taught by Nagayoshi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the pressure in the cell to be controlled, as taught by Nagayoshi. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Barisci and Wylie, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Drogui (WO 2009/143629 A1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Huang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Huang further teaches the housing comprises a cylindrical wall, an inlet, and an outlet (see Fig. 24), and the inlet is fluidly connected to a hollow interior of the first electrode (see Fig. 26).
Modified Huang does not teach the inlet is directly fluidly connected to a hollow interior of the first electrode.
However, Drogui teaches a fluid treatment system comprising a plurality of concentrically arranged electrodes (p. 22 lines 1-13 and Fig. 2), wherein the inlet is directly fluidly connected to a hollow of the first electrode (“anode” Fig. 2).
As Drogui teaches a fluid treatment system comprising a plurality of concentrically arranged electrodes, Drogui is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Huang, such that the inlet is directly fluidly connected to a hollow of the first electrode, as taught by Drogui. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Drogui teaches this is a suitable means for connecting the inlet of the housing to a fluid treatment system comprising a plurality of concentrically arranged electrodes. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 24, Huang further teaches the outlet of the housing is directly fluidly connected to an annular space between the second electrode and the cylindrical wall of the housing (see “permeate” in Fig. 24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 6-7, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to claims 1, 4-5, 9-14, 16, 19-20, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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 at (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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights