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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 11/05/2025. Claims 1, 4-5, 9-14, 16, 19-20, and 23-25 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 Of these, claims 10-11 are withdrawn from consideration.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 15 and 18 were cancelled by applicant.
Status of the Rejection
The rejection of claims 19-20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 9, 12-14, 16, 19-20, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.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 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, 9, 12-13, 19-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckelberry (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0122741 A1) in view of Diaz et al. (“Kinetics of electro-oxidation of ammonia-N, nitrites and COD from a recirculating aquaculture saline water system using BDD anodes” Water Research 45 (2011) 125-134) and Kuang et al. (“Comparison of performance between boron-doped diamond and copper electrodes for selective nitrogen gas formation by the electrochemical reduction of nitrate” Chemosphere 210 (2018) 524-530).
Regarding claim 1, Eckelberry teaches a flow-through electrochemical reactor (“electrode assembly 400” Fig. 5 and para. 44), comprising:
a housing including a solution flow-path (“the electrode assembly 400 … housed within a flow cell that can … allow wastewater to contact and flow through the electrode assembly 400.” para. 44);
a first electrode (“inner electrode 410” para. 39 and Fig. 5) disposed within the solution flow-path (para. 44), the first electrode having a hollow (“the electrodes may comprise a hollow support substrate core coated with a non-donating material” para. 48) cylindrical shape (“the inner electrode 410 configured as a cylinder” para. 41); and
a second electrode (“the outer electrode 420” Fig. 5 and para. 44) having a hollow cylindrical shape (“the electrodes may comprise a hollow support substrate core coated with a non-donating material” para. 48 and Fig. 5), the electrodes being arranged concentrically (“the inner electrode 410 configured as a cylinder that is centrally positioned within the outer electrode 420” para. 41 and Fig. 5), the first electrode being located within a wall of the second electrode (“the inner electrode 410 and the outer electrode 420 can be configured with a nested cylinder arrangement.” Para. 45 and Fig. 5), the second electrode being spaced apart from the first electrode creating an electroactive gap (“spacing 440” para. 39 and Fig. 5) between the first electrode as an anode and the second electrode as a cathode (“inner electrode 410 can [sic] configured as an anode and the outer electrode 420 can be configured as a cathode” para. 42), the electroactive gap being less than 5 mm and greater than 1 mm, a range fully encompassing the claimed range (“the spacing 440 can range from about 1 mm to about 5 mm” para. 40 and Fig. 5).
A range in the prior art fully encompassing a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Eckelberry does not teach the first electrode and the second electrode comprise boron doped diamond (BDD).
However, Diaz teaches a flow-through (see e.g., Fig. 1) electrochemical reactor for the electro-oxidation of water (title and abstract), wherein a first electrode serving as an anode and a second electrode serving as a cathode each comprise boron doped diamond (BDD) (“circular Boron Doped Diamond (BDD) on silicon anode and cathode” § 2.2. para. 1), wherein the use of BDD as the anode and cathode material reduces energy consumption relative to other electrode materials (§ 3.5. para. 4).
Furthermore, Kuang teaches that BDD cathodes have high activity for the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas (abstract) and selectively reduce nitrate to nitrogen in preference to competing reactions (abstract), thereby saving energy (abstract), and
Eckelberry teaches a goal of their system is the removal of nitrates (e.g., para. 106).
As Eckelberry teaches a flow-through electrochemical reactor for water treatment, Eckelberry is analogous art to the instant invention. As Diaz and Kuang each teach BDD electrodes for use in treating water, Diaz and Kuang are 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 Eckelberry, such that both the anode and cathode comprise boron doped diamond (BDD), as taught by Diaz. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of reducing energy consumption, as taught by Diaz, and increasing selectivity for nitrate reduction and reducing the energy usage of the electrochemical cell, as taught by Kuang. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., BDD as an electrode material in a water treatment system) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Eckelberry further teaches the electroactive gap is between 1 and 5 mm, a range fully encompassing the claimed range (2.5-4 mm, claim 4) and value (3 mm, claim 5).
A range in the prior art fully encompassing a claimed range or value establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, modified Eckelberry teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Eckelberry further teaches a wall of the second electrode has a plurality of openings (“apertures 430 comprise circular cutouts in the outer electrode 420.” Para. 43 and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, modified Eckelberry teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Eckelberry further teaches an electrolyte solution in the solution flow path (“wastewater to contact and flow through the electrode assembly 400.” para. 44, see also para. 6).
Regarding claim 13, modified Eckelberry teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Eckelberry further teaches a power source connected to the first electrode and to the second electrode thereby creating an electrical circuit (“The inner electrode 410 can further comprise an inner electrode connector 415 configured to be connected to a power supply. The outer electrode 420 can further comprise an outer electrode connector 425 configured to be connected to a power supply.” para. 38, see also para. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Eckelberry teaches a method of electrochemically treating a solution (title), the method comprising:
providing a first electrode (“inner electrode 410” para. 39 and Fig. 5); and
a second electrode (“the outer electrode 420” Fig. 5 and para. 44);
both the first electrode and the second electrode having a hollow cylindrical shape (“the electrodes may comprise a hollow support substrate core coated with a non-donating material” para. 48, “the inner electrode 410 configured as a cylinder” para. 41, and see Fig. 5),
the first electrode and the second electrode concentrically positioned (“the inner electrode 410 configured as a cylinder that is centrally positioned within the outer electrode 420” para. 41 and Fig. 5) less than 5 mm and greater than 1 mm apart, a range fully encompassing the claimed range (“the spacing 440 can range from about 1 mm to about 5 mm” para. 40 and Fig. 5), 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 (“the inner electrode 410 configured as a cylinder that is centrally positioned within the outer electrode 420” para. 41 and Fig. 5);
applying power to the first electrode and to the second electrode (“The inner electrode 410 can further comprise an inner electrode connector 415 configured to be connected to a power supply. The outer electrode 420 can further comprise an outer electrode connector 425 configured to be connected to a power supply.” para. 38, see also para. 6); and
passing a solution containing contaminant through the electroactive gap (“the electrode assembly 400 can … be housed within a flow cell … configured to allow wastewater to contact and flow through the electrode assembly 400.” Para. 44 and Fig. 5) between the second electrode as a cathode and the first electrode as an anode (“inner electrode 410 can [sic] configured as an anode and the outer electrode 420 can be configured as a cathode” para. 42), thereby electrochemically treating the contaminants in the solution (e.g., para. 6).
A range in the prior art encompassing a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Eckelberry does not teach the first electrode and the second electrode both comprise boron doped diamond (BDD).
However, Diaz teaches a flow-through (see e.g., Fig. 1) electrochemical reactor for the electro-oxidation of water (title and abstract), wherein a first electrode serving as an anode and a second electrode serving as a cathode each comprise boron doped diamond (BDD) (“circular Boron Doped Diamond (BDD) on silicon anode and cathode” § 2.2. para. 1), wherein the use of BDD as the anode and cathode material reduces energy consumption relative to other electrode materials (§ 3.5. para. 4).
Furthermore, Kuang teaches that BDD cathodes have high activity for the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas (abstract) and selectively reduce nitrate to nitrogen in preference to competing reactions (abstract), thereby saving energy (abstract), and
Eckelberry teaches a goal of their system is the removal of nitrates (e.g., para. 106).
As Eckelberry teaches a flow-through electrochemical reactor for water treatment, Eckelberry is analogous art to the instant invention. As Diaz and Kuang each teach BDD electrodes for use in treating water, Diaz and Kuang are 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 Eckelberry, such that both the anode and cathode comprise boron doped diamond (BDD), as taught by Diaz. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of reducing energy consumption, as taught by Diaz, and increasing selectivity for nitrate reduction and reducing the energy usage of the electrochemical cell, as taught by Kuang. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., BDD as an electrode material in a water treatment system) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 20, Eckelberry further teaches reducing contaminants on the second electrode (“the present methods and systems can be employed to remove other contaminants … (e.g. via reduction chemistry)” para. 103).
Regarding claim 25, modified Eckelberry teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Eckelberry further teaches turbulent flow between the electrodes is promoted (“the apertures 430 are configured in size and density to avoid dead zones” para. 43).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckelberry in view of Diaz and Kuang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagayoshi (JP 2001/300536 A).
Regarding claim 14, modified Eckelberry teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Eckelberry 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 Eckelberry 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 Eckelberry teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Eckelberry 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 Eckelberry, 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 Eckelberry in view of Diaz and Kuang, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Green (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0264401 A1) and Drogui (WO 2009/143629 A1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Eckelberry teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Eckelberry further teaches the housing comprises a wall, an inlet, and an outlet (“housed within a flow cell … configured to allow wastewater to contact and flow through the electrode assembly 400” para. 44, in order to allow wastewater to contact and flow through the assembly, the housing must necessarily comprise a wall, an inlet, and an outlet).
Modified Eckelberry does not explicitly teach the housing wall is cylindrical.
However, Green teaches a fluid treatment system (title) comprising a plurality of cylindrical, concentrically arranged electrodes (abstract and Fig. 4), wherein a cylindrical housing is used to house the electrodes (para. 58 and Fig. 1).
As Green teaches a fluid treatment system comprising a plurality of cylindrical electrodes, Green 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 use a cylindrical housing wall in the system of Eckelberry, as taught by Green. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Green teaches a cylindrical housing wall is suitable for housing cylindrical electrodes. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Eckelberry 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 Eckelberry, 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, modified Eckelberry does not explicitly teach the outlet of the housing is directly fluidly connected to an annular space between the second electrode and the cylindrical wall of the housing.
However, Drogui further teaches the outlet of the housing is directly fluidly connected to a space between the second electrode and the wall of the housing (Fig. 2).
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 Eckelberry such that the outlet of the housing is directly fluidly connected to an annular space between the second electrode and the cylindrical wall of the housing, because Drogui teaches a direct fluid connection between the outlet of the housing and the space between the second electrode is a suitable arrangement for a housing outlet in a system comprising concentric, cylindrical electrodes. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
As the housing and electrodes in modified Eckelberry are cylindrical, this connection would necessarily result in a connection between an annular space and a cylindrical housing wall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 5, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 19-20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 19-20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 5-6, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 5-6 that none of the prior art of record teaches the use of an electrochemical system comprising both an anode and a cathode comprising boron doped diamond (BDD), and that therefore claims 1 and 19 as currently amended are patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner agrees. However, as described in the rejections of the amended claims, Diaz teaches an electro-oxidation system and method using an anode and cathode that each comprise BDD, and is considered to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with a motivation for adopting BDD as the material for at least the anode of such a system or method. It is therefore considered that the claims, as currently amended, are rendered obvious by the previously cited prior art in combination with Diaz.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights