Detailed Action
This is a Non-Final Office action based on application 17/533,522 filed on November 23, 2021. The application is a CON of 17/249,343 with priority to provisional 62/860,433 filed June 12, 2019.
Claims 1, 4-22, 24-26 are pending and 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/5/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Rejection
The §103 rejections of record are withdrawn
New §103 grounds are presented based on the previously applied references in further view of Murray Jr (US 2009/0260989 A1).
The double patenting rejections are maintained.
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, 7-13, 15, 16, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibeid et al (US 2015/0001094 A1) in view of Mikio (US 2006/0254929 A1), Kump (US 5,876,575 A), Johnson et al (US 2015/0151985 A1), and Murray Jr (US 2009/0260989 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ibeid teaches a method of removing phosphorus from water (para [0013]-[0017], figure 4); [0069]), the method comprising:
- immersing an electrochemical cell in water comprising phosphorus to form treated water comprising a salt that comprises the phosphorus (para [0069], [0079]-[0080]), the electrochemical cell comprising:
o an anode comprising Al (para [0069]);
o a cathode having a different composition than the anode (para [0048], “For example, the at least anode can comprise aluminum and the at least cathode can comprise iron”), and
o a conductive connector that electrically connects the anode and the cathode (para [0079], “Direct current power supply”), and
o a gap between the anode and the cathode whereby the anode and the cathode are free of direct contact with one another (figure 1, a gap is disposed between anode and cathode; figure 2 and para [0094], a gap is disposed between inner cylindrical cathode and outer cylindrical anode);
- separating the salt comprising the phosphorus from the treated water, to form separated water having a lower phosphorus concentration than the water comprising phosphorus (para [0069], [0084], figure 4),
- wherein the separated water has a reactive phosphorus concentration that is 0% to 20% of a reactive phosphorus concentration of the water comprising phosphorus (para [0084] and figure 4, Ibeid's method is applied to treat a water containing 13 mg/mL orthophosphate phosphorus from 13 mg/L to less than 0.5 mg/L, and demonstrates "almost complete removal" (para [0084]), producing an effluent with orthophosphate concentration near zero (figure 4). The exact effluent orthophosphate concentration cannot be clearly determined from Ibeid's graph in figure 4, but it is at least readily apparent that the effluent is less than 0.5 mg/mL (figure 4), putting the orthophosphate concentration of the separated water in a range of between 0% and 4% of the orthophosphate concentration of the influent. Note that orthophosphate is reactive phosphorus (instant specification para [0036], [00106])).
Ibeid does not teach the cathode is a first and second cathode having the anode therebetween, wherein the first and second cathodes comprise copper; wherein the first and second cathodes comprise a porous cathode material, wherein a conductive connector electrically connects the first and second cathode to one another. Ibeid does not teach an electrically insulating connector that physically connects the anode, the first cathode, and the second cathode and maintains a gap between the first cathode and between the anode and the second cathode. Ibeid also does not teach that the cell is a galvanic cell or that the cell is free of external electrical potential applied across the anode and cathode.
Mikio is similarly directed to an method of removing phosphorus from water with an electrolytic apparatus (para [0073], [0126]-[0128]), wherein the electrolytic cell is a galvanic cell and is free of external electrical potential applied across the anode and cathode (per para [0026]-[0029] and [0095], the cell comprises a junction of two dissimilar metals and powered by the difference in ionization potential between the two). Mikio teaches that configuring the device as a galvanic cell improves the device by eliminating the need for an external electrical power supply (para [0019]-[0032]). In one embodiment, Mikio teaches the anode is aluminum and the cathode is copper (para [0116]-[0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ibeid by substituting the electrolytic cell with a galvanic cell having no external electrical potential applied across the anode and cathode, i.e. a cell driven by the differing oxidation potentials of a junction of dissimilar metals as taught in Mikio, because Mikio teaches that this modification eliminates the need for an external electrical power supply and thereby makes the device simpler and less expensive (para [0019]-[0032]).
Ibeid and Mikio do not teach the cathode is a first and second cathode having the anode therebetween, wherein the first and second cathodes comprise a porous cathode material, wherein a conductive connector electrically connects the first and second cathode to one another; or wherein an electrically insulating connector that physically connects the anode, the first cathode, and the second cathode and maintains a gap between the first cathode and between the anode and the second cathode.
Kump is similarly directed to water treatment, using a galvanic cell with an anode (col 3 ln 9-11, "magnesium anode 54 is an elongated plate centrally located in the assembly, spaced between a plurality of pairs of thin copper plates 52"), a first and second copper cathode having the anode therebetween (col 2 ln 10-20; col 3 ln 6-11; figures 2-3, cathodes 52 are sandwiching anode 54), a gap between the anode and the cathodes (figure 3, anode 54 and cathodes 52 are separated by washers so as to create a gap between anode and cathode; col 3 ln 19-25) and a conductive connector which electrically connects the first and second cathode to one another (figure 2-4, brass nuts 58 and bolts 56 link the first and second cathodes 52 together; col 3 ln 19-24). Kump teaches that the cathode and the electrical connectors connecting the cathodes together should be made of copper and/or brass, because when other metals such as steel are used in the construction of the cell, the anode corrodes too quickly, causing anodes to fail prematurely and causing excessive consumption of the sacrificial anode material during the operation of the cell (col 1 ln 1 - col 2 ln 9; col 3 ln 43 - col 4 ln 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the galvanic cell of Ibeid and Mikio with a central anode sandwiched between a first cathode and second cathode, a gap for water through-flow between the first cathode and the anode, a gap for water through-flow between the second cathode and the anode, and conductive connectors connecting the two anodes together, based on Kump’s disclosure that a galvanic cell with this structure is effective for water treatment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when determining what materials to use for the cathode in the galvanic cell of the method of Ibeid and Mikio, to select copper as taught in Kump, in order to lower the rate of anode consumption and extend the lifetime of the anode as taught in Kump (col 1 ln 1 - col 2 ln 9; col 3 ln 43 - col 4 ln 12).
Ibeid, Mikio, and Kump do not teach the copper cathodes are porous cathodes, nor that the first cathode, the anode, and the second cathode are physically connected and spaced apart by an electrically insulating connector.
Johnson is similarly directed to water treatment using a galvanic cell (para [0017]-[0019]). Johnson teaches that, compared to a cathode formed of solid metal plate or foil, a cathode formed from a porous material comprising wire or screen will have higher specific surface area and present more contacting surface between the cathode and the water, with the result that “the efficiency of the reactor is significantly higher than plate-type arrangements, and allows for a greater degree of treatment with a smaller reactor and lower amperage” (para [0020], [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ibeid, Mikio and Kump by forming the cathode as a porous wire mesh or screen, in order to increase the amount of interfacial area between the water and the electrode, and thereby improve the efficiency of the water treatment as taught in Johnson (para [0020], [0028]).
Although Kump teaches a connector that physically connects the anode and cathodes while maintaining a gap between them (figure 2-4, brass nuts 58 and bolts 56), Ibeid, Mikio, Kump and Johnson do not teach wherein that connector is electrically insulating.
Murray Jr discloses an electrocoagulation device and a method of removing phosphorus from water with the device (para [0011], [0031]). Murray Jr’s device comprises of several parallel electrode plates, spaced apart so as to define a gap between them (figure 1-3, electrode plates 2), and electrically insulating connectors which physically connect the plates together and maintain a gap between the plates so that the electrode plates are free of direct contact with one another (figure 1-3, para [0020]-[0021], “a plurality of aluminum plates 2 secured together, and separated from one another, by insulated plate connectors 3”; para [0024], “aluminum plates 2 are bolted together, approximately 0.25 inch apart, using nonconductive ¼ 20 nylon bolts and nuts”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when selecting connecting means for physically connecting the anode and cathodes in a spaced arrangement as disclosed in Kump, to select electrically insulating connectors, because Murray Jr, similarly directed to an electrochemical cell comprising for removal of phosphorus from water, teaches that electrically insulating connectors are effective to physically connect electrode plates in spaced arrangement. 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 4, modified Ibeid renders obvious the method of claim 1, and Ibeid teaches the method comprise the formation of AlPO4 from an aluminum anode (para [0064], [0069]). Ibeid teaches aluminum as a single metal rather than as an alloyed composition, thereby rendering obvious a composition completely of aluminum, i.e. a composition of up to 100 wt% Al.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ibeid renders obvious the method of claim 1. Ibeid teaches a cylinder-shaped electrochemical cell in which water flows vertically downward past the anode (figure 2), but does not teach the anode comprises a strip profile. However, Kump also teaches a cylinder-shaped electrochemical cell in which water flows vertical downward past the anode (figure 1, water flows downward from upper inlet 14 to lower outlet 16; col 2 ln 37 - col 3 ln 2), and teaches that a strip profile is a suitable shape for the anode of such cell (figure 2-4, anode 54 is a strip; col 3 ln 9, “anode 54 is an elongated plate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of modified Ibeid using a strip-shaped anode as shown in Kump, because Ibeid and Kump are similarly directed to a cell in which water flows vertically past the electrodes, and Kump teaches that a vertical strip shape is a suitable shape for the anode in the context of such a cell. The selection of a known element, 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 6, Ibeid, modified in view of Murray Jr and others, renders obvious the method of claim 1. Murray Jr further teaches that the electrically insulating connectors hold the electrode plates in a spaced apart arrangement with a gap spacing of 0.25 inches between adjacent electrodes (para [0024]), which falls within the claimed range of 1 to 110 mm (note 0.25 inch is about 6.3 mm).
Regarding claim 7, Ibeid, modified in view of Johnson and others, renders obvious the method of claim 1, and Johnson teaches the porous cathode material comprises a wire mesh or a wire screen (para [0020], [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ibeid renders obvious the method of claim 1, and Murray Jr teaches the conductive connector comprises plastic (col 3 ln 57, “nylon”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ibeid renders obvious the method of claim 1, and Ibeid teaches the separated water has 97 to 99.7 percent less total phosphorous and total nitrogen compared to the water comprising phosphorus (para [0032], [0041], [0092]; figure 13), therefore the separated water has a total phosphorus concentration that is 0.3 - 3% of the total phosphorus concentration of the water comprising phosphorus, and a total nitrogen concentration that is 0.3 - 3% of a total nitrogen concentration of the water comprising phosphorus; these values fall within the claimed ranges of 0-20% total phosphorus and 0-30% total nitrogen concentration respectively.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ibeid renders obvious the method of claim 1, and Ibeid teaches the salt comprising the phosphorus comprises a material from the anode (para [0069], the phosphorus salt comprises AlPO4 formed from the aluminum of the anode).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ibeid renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the water comprising phosphorus further comprises a dissolved transition metal Pb, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ni and Cd, or post-transition metal such as Pb (para [0094]-[0097]), and the method further comprises removing these metals along with the phosphorus (para [0094]-[0097]). Ibeid teaches that these metals are removed similarly to the process utilizing aluminum to precipitate phosphorus, and that aluminum forms hydroxides for said precipitation (para [0069], [0079], [0094]). Ibeid does not specify forming a hydroxide salts of the metal(s) during the immersing of the electrochemical cell in the water comprising phosphorus, or separating the metal(s) in their hydroxide salt form. However, in view of Ibeid’s teaching that the metals are separated in the process comprising anodic oxidation of aluminum, and that aluminum forms hydroxides for precipitation (para [0069], [0079], [0094]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the process of modified Ibeid to remove the metals in their hydroxide salt form, with reasonable expectation of successful removal.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ibeid renders obvious the method of claim 1, and Ibeid further teaches immersing the electrochemical cell or a plurality thereof in an enclosure comprising the water comprising the phosphorus; and filtering the salt comprising the phosphorus from the treated water via one or more filters that are at least partially submerged in the water comprising the phosphorus that immerses the electrochemical cells (para [0079], “ultrafiltration membrane module”; figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ibeid renders obvious the method of claim 1, and Ibeid further teaches the method is a method of making AlPO4 (para [0064], [0069]), wherein: the salt comprising the phosphorus comprises AlPO4 comprising the phosphorus and Al from the anode (para [0069]), such that separating the salt comprising the phosphorus from the treated water provides separated AlPO4 (para [0069]). Ibeid teaches aluminum is present in the anode as a single metal rather than as an alloyed composition (para [0069]), thereby rendering obvious an anode composition completely of aluminum, i.e. an anode composition of up to 100 wt% Al.
Kump teaches copper is present in the first and second cathodes as a single metal rather than as an alloyed composition (col 3 ln 8), thereby rendering obvious a cathode composition completely of copper, i.e. up to 100 wt% Cu.
Regarding claim 20:
Ibeid teaches a method of removing phosphorus from water (para [0013]-[0017], figure 4); [0069]), the method comprising:
immersing an electrochemical cell in water comprising phosphorus to form treated water comprising a salt that comprises the phosphorus (para [0069], [0079]-[0080]), the salt comprising AlPO4 or a hydrate thereof (para [0069]), the electrochemical cell comprising:
an anode comprising Al (para [0069]),
a cathode having a different composition than the anode (para [0048], “For example, the at least anode can comprise aluminum and the at least cathode can comprise iron”),
a gap between the anode and the cathode (figure 1, a gap is disposed between anode and cathode; figure 2 and para [0094], a gap is disposed between inner cylindrical cathode and outer cylindrical anode), and
separating the salt comprising the phosphorus from the treated water, to form separated water having a lower phosphorus concentration than the water comprising phosphorus (para [0069], [0084], figure 4),
wherein the separated water has a reactive phosphorus concentration that is 0% to 20% of a reactive phosphorus concentration of the water comprising phosphorus (para [0084] and figure 4, Ibeid's method is applied to treat a water containing 13 mg/mL orthophosphate phosphorus from 13 mg/L to less than 0.5 mg/L, and demonstrates "almost complete removal" (para [0084]), producing an effluent with orthophosphate concentration near zero (figure 4). The exact effluent orthophosphate concentration cannot be clearly determined from Ibeid's graph in figure 4, but it is at least readily apparent that the effluent is less than 0.5 mg/mL (figure 4), putting the orthophosphate concentration of the separated water in a range of between 0% and 4% of the orthophosphate concentration of the influent. Note that orthophosphate is reactive phosphorus (instant specification para [0036], [00106])).
Ibeid teaches aluminum is present in the anode as a single metal rather than as an alloyed composition (para [0069]), thereby suggesting an anode composition completely of aluminum, i.e. an anode composition of up to 100 wt% Al.
Ibeid does not teach the cathode is a first and second cathode having the anode therebetween, wherein the first and second cathodes comprise copper; wherein the first and second cathodes comprise a porous cathode material, wherein a conductive connector electrically connects the first and second cathode to one another. Ibeid does not teach an electrically insulating connector that physically connects the anode, the first cathode, and the second cathode and maintains a gap between the first cathode and between the anode and the second cathode. Ibeid also does not teach that the cell is a galvanic cell or that the cell is free of external electrical potential applied across the anode and cathode.
Mikio is similarly directed to an method of removing phosphorus from water with an electrolytic apparatus (para [0073], [0126]-[0128]), and teaches that configuring the device as a galvanic cell improves the device by eliminating the need for an external electrical power supply (para [0019]-[0032]). In one embodiment, Mikio teaches the anode is aluminum and the cathode is copper (para [0116]-[0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ibeid by configuring the device as a galvanic cell, i.e. driven by the differing oxidation potentials of a junction of dissimilar metals as taught in Mikio, because Mikio teaches that this modification eliminates the need for an external electrical power supply and thereby makes the device simpler and less expensive (para [0019]-[0032]).
Ibeid and Mikio do not teach the cathode is a first and second cathode having the anode therebetween, wherein the first and second cathodes comprise a porous cathode material, wherein a conductive connector electrically connects the first and second cathode to one another; or wherein an electrically insulating connector that physically connects the anode, the first cathode, and the second cathode and maintains a gap between the first cathode and between the anode and the second cathode.
Kump is similarly directed to water treatment, using a galvanic cell with an anode (col 3 ln 9-11, "magnesium anode 54 is an elongated plate centrally located in the assembly, spaced between a plurality of pairs of thin copper plates 52"), a first and second copper cathode having the anode therebetween (col 2 ln 10-20; col 3 ln 6-11; figures 2-3, cathodes 52 are sandwiching anode 54), a gap between the anode and the cathodes (figure 3, anode 54 and cathodes 52 are separated by washers so as to create a gap between anode and cathode; col 3 ln 19-25) and a conductive connector which electrically connects the first and second cathode to one another (figure 2-4, brass nuts 58 and bolts 56 link the first and second cathodes 52 together; col 3 ln 19-24).
Kump teaches that the cathode and the electrical connectors connecting the cathodes together should be made of copper and/or brass, because when other metals such as steel are used in the construction of the cell, the anode corrodes too quickly, causing anodes to fail prematurely and causing excessive consumption of the sacrificial anode material during the operation of the cell (col 1 ln 1 - col 2 ln 9; col 3 ln 43 - col 4 ln 12). Kump teaches copper is present in the cathodes as a single metal rather than as an alloyed composition (col 3 ln 8), thereby rendering obvious a cathode composition completely of copper, i.e. up to 100 wt% Cu.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the galvanic cell of Ibeid and Mikio with a central anode sandwiched between a first cathode and second cathode, a gap for water through-flow between the first cathode and the anode, a gap for water through-flow between the second cathode and the anode, and conductive connectors connecting the two anodes together, based on Kump’s disclosure that a galvanic cell with this structure is effective for water treatment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when determining what materials to use for the cathodes in the galvanic cell of the method of Ibeid and Mikio, to select 90%-100% copper as taught in Kump, in order to lower the rate of anode consumption and extend the lifetime of the anode as taught in Kump (col 1 ln 1 - col 2 ln 9; col 3 ln 43 - col 4 ln 12).
Ibeid, Mikio, and Kump do not teach the copper cathodes are porous cathodes, nor that the first cathode, the anode, and the second cathode are physically connected and spaced apart by an electrically insulating connector.
Johnson is similarly directed to water treatment using a galvanic cell (para [0017]-[0019]). Johnson teaches that, compared to a cathode formed of solid metal plate or foil, a cathode formed from a porous material comprising wire or screen will have higher specific surface area and present more contacting surface between the cathode and the water, with the result that “the efficiency of the reactor is significantly higher than plate-type arrangements, and allows for a greater degree of treatment with a smaller reactor and lower amperage” (para [0020], [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ibeid, Mikio and Kump by forming the cathode as a porous wire mesh or screen, in order to increase the amount of interfacial area between the water and the electrode, and thereby improve the efficiency of the water treatment as taught in Johnson (para [0020], [0028]).
Although Kump teaches a connector that physically connects the anode and cathodes while maintaining a gap between them (figure 2-4, brass nuts 58 and bolts 56), Ibeid, Mikio, Kump and Johnson do not teach wherein that connector is electrically insulating.
Murray Jr discloses an electrocoagulation device and a method of removing phosphorus from water with the device (para [0011], [0031]). Murray Jr’s device comprises of several parallel electrode plates, spaced apart so as to define a gap between them (figure 1-3, electrode plates 2), and electrically insulating connectors which physically connect the plates together and maintain a gap between the plates so that the electrode plates are free of direct contact with one another (figure 1-3, para [0020]-[0021], “a plurality of aluminum plates 2 secured together, and separated from one another, by insulated plate connectors 3”; para [0024], “aluminum plates 2 are bolted together, approximately 0.25 inch apart, using nonconductive ¼ 20 nylon bolts and nuts”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when selecting connecting means for physically connecting the anode and cathodes in a spaced arrangement as disclosed in Kump, to select electrically insulating connectors, because Murray Jr, similarly directed to an electrochemical cell comprising for removal of phosphorus from water, teaches that electrically insulating connectors are effective to physically connect electrode plates in spaced arrangement. 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 21, Ibeid, Mikio, Kump, Johnson, and Murray Jr render obvious the method of claim 1, and Murray Jr teaches the electrically insulating connector comprises a plastic screw (col 3 ln 57-58, “nonconductive ¼ 20 nylon bolts and nuts”).
Regarding claim 24, modified Ibeid renders obvious the method of claim 1, and Ibeid teaches the separated water has a reactive phosphorus concentration that is 0% to 10% of a reactive phosphorus concentration of the water comprising phosphorus (para [0084] and figure 4, Ibeid's method is applied to treat a water containing 13 mg/mL orthophosphate phosphorus from 13 mg/L to less than 0.5 mg/L, and demonstrates "almost complete removal" (para [0084]), producing an effluent with orthophosphate concentration near zero (figure 4). The exact effluent orthophosphate concentration cannot be clearly determined from Ibeid's graph in figure 4, but it is at least readily apparent that the effluent is less than 0.5 mg/mL (figure 4), putting the orthophosphate concentration of the separated water in a range of between 0% and 4% of the orthophosphate concentration of the influent. Note that orthophosphate is reactive phosphorus (instant specification para [0036], [00106])).
Regarding claim 26, modified Ibeid renders obvious the method of claim 1, and the modifying reference by Mikio teaches that such a method of phosphate removal may be used to treat water from a natural water source such a pond or lake (para [0001], [0073], [0118]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ibeid as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Saradakis (US 3,926,673 A).
Regarding claim 8, Ibeid, Mikio, Kump, Johnson, and Murray Jr render obvious the method of claim 1 but do not teach that the conductive connector which connects the first cathode to the second cathode comprises a wire.
Saradakis discloses a galvanic cell comprising an anode (figure 1 anode 3), a first cathode and second cathode spaced apart on either side of the anode (figure 1, cathodes 4), and a conductive connector which connects the first cathode to the second cathode wherein the conductive connector is a wire (figure 1, connector 6; col 2 ln 19-20, “cathodes 4, arranged at a distance from the anode, are connected via electric wires”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when implementing the method of modified Ibeid in which the first and second spaced apart cathodes of the galvanic cell are connected by a conductive connector as disclosed in Kump, to use wire as the conductive connector, in light of Saradakis’s teaching that wire is a suitable connector for electrically connecting the two cathodes of a galvanic cell together. 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)].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ibeid as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Bilbao et al (US 2013/0220919 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ibeid, Mikio, Kump, Johnson, and Murray Jr render obvious the method of claim 1, but are silent with respect to the pH value of the water comprising phosphorus into which the electrochemical cell is immersed.
Bilbao is similarly directed to removing phosphorus from a phosphorus containing water source by precipitation via a sacrificial anode (abstract). Bilbao teaches that a typical starting pH of the water is between 5 and 7 (para [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of modified Ibeid on wastewater having a starting pH of 5 to 7, with a reasonable expectation of successfully removing the phosphorus from the water, because Bilbao teaches this pH range is typical of phosphorus-containing wastewater, and teaches that a process of removing phosphorus from water by precipitating with a sacrificial anode is operable over this pH range.
Claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ibeid as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamiya et al (US 2003/0226803 A1).
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 19, Ibeid, Mikio, Kump, Johnson and Murray Jr render obvious the method of claim 1, but do not teach wherein the method further comprises adding an aqueous solution of an oxidizer to the water comprising phosphorus prior to and/or during immersion of the electrochemical cell in the water comprising phosphorus.
Kamiya teaches that, in a method of treating phosphorus-containing wastewater, the addition of an aqueous solution comprising hydrogen peroxide with added ozone is highly effective for removing phosphorus (para [0447]-[0450]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bilbao, directed to phosphorus removal, to include the addition of an aqueous solution of oxidizers such as hydrogen peroxide and ozone, in order to further increase phosphorus removal as taught in Kamiya (para [0447]-[0450]). In so doing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the addition could occur at any point in the process, including prior to and/or during the immersion of the electrochemical cell in the water (MPEP 2144.06 (I)).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibeid, Mikio, Kump, Johnson, and Murray Jr as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Forrest et al (US 3,385,785 A).
Regarding claim 22, Ibeid, Mikio, Kump, Johnson, and Murray Jr render obvious the method of claim 1, but do not teach regulating a rate of introduction of an acid to the water comprising phosphorus, to adjust its pH to a pH of from 5 to 7, prior to immersing the electrochemical cell therein.
Forrest is directed to methods for treating phosphorus-containing sewage to remove the phosphorus (col 1 ln 12-41). Forrest's method includes aerating the sewage (abstract; col 7 ln 66 - col 8 ln 11), then adjusting the sewage pH by addition of an acid in order to bring the pH to a value between 3.5 and 6 (abstract; col 7 ln 15-21, col 8 ln 15-19), and more particularly a pH value of 5 (col 10 ln 5-13, 33-39), which falls within the claimed pH range of from 5 to 7. The pH treatment draws phosphorus out of the sewage solids and into the liquid phase (col 1 ln 56 - col 2 ln 2; col 7 ln 17-21) which are separated to produce a phosphate-rich wash liquor and a low-phosphate sludge (col 2 ln 2-5, col 7 ln 30-42). Forrest recirculates the phosphate-depleted sludge (col 2 ln 4-5; col 7 ln 50-58) and sends the phosphate-containing water to a conventional precipitation step to remove the phosphorus (col 2 ln 5-9; col 7 ln 36-50). Forrest teaches that their process is an effective way to remove phosphorus from a phosphorus-contaminated sewage stream (per col 2 ln 19-63, Forrest's process improves on comparable prior art processes of the time, by achieving more thorough phosphorus removal and discharging lower amounts of phosphorus to the environment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to practice Ibeid's method of removing phosphorus from water in the context of a multistage sewage treatment process that removes phosphorus from the sewage. In so doing, it would have been obvious to practice a step of introducing acid at a rate that is regulated so as to attain a pH value in the claimed range, because Forrest teaches that acidifying to a pH in the claimed range is an effective way to separate a phosphorus-containing sewage into a low-phosphorus solid phase and a phosphorus-loaded liquid phase ready for subsequent phosphate-removing treatment.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ibeid as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Irdemez et al ("Optimization of phosphate removal from wastewater by electrocoagulation with aluminum plate electrodes", Separation and Purification Technology, 52, 394-401 (2006)).
Regarding claim 25, modified Ibeid renders obvious the method of claim 1 and Ibeid figure 4 shows that an influent containing 13 mg/mL orthophosphate is treated to form a separated water effluent with a reduced orthophosphate concentration; the exact effluent orthophosphate concentration cannot be clearly determined from Ibeid's graph in figure 4, but it is at least readily apparent that the effluent is less than 0.5 mg/mL (figure 4), putting the orthophosphate concentration of the separated water in a range of between 0% and 4% of the orthophosphate concentration of the influent. Ibeid states that the method effects "almost complete removal" (para [0084]) of orthophosphate (i.e. reactive phosphorus).
However, modified Ibeid does not clearly suggest that the reactive phosphorus concentration of the separated water is between 0% and 0.1% of the reactive phosphorus concentration of the influent water containing phosphorus.
Irdemez is directed to methods of removing phosphate from water comprising phosphorus by means of electrocoagulation on aluminum electrodes (see pg 394-395 sections 1 through 2.2; figure 1), and to optimize phosphate removal efficiency by varying the current density, the pH, and the supporting electrolyte composition of the water comprising phosphorus (pg 395 left column para 2-3, "Taguchi's orthogonal array (OA) analysis is used to ... determine the optimum operating conditions ... based on removal efficiency"; pg 395-397 section 2.3 and pg 396 Table 1). Irdemez reports that by appropriate selection of process conditions they are able to attain a phosphate removal efficiency of 100.0% (pg 396, table 2, samples 2 and 4; pg 398 samples 1-3) or of 99.9% (pg 396, table 2, sample 9), which is to say that the phosphorus concentration of the effluent water is from 0% to 0.1% of that of the influent water containing phosphorus. Note that all of Irdemez's experiments are conducted on model wastewater solutions in which all of the phosphorus is reactive phosphorus (pg 395 section 2.1). Also note that the experiments in which Irdemez attains 100.0% phosphate removal include experiments conducted at pH of 5 (pg 396 table 2 example 2) and pH of 7 (pg 396 table 2 example 4).
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 the method of Ibeid by varying parameters such as supporting electrolyte composition and concentration and pH in order to improve reactive phosphorus removal efficiency, with the reasonable expectation of a removal efficiency in the range of 99.9% to 100.0% (i.e., with the treated water effluent having a reactive phosphorus concentration in the range of 0.0% to 0.1% of that of the influent water containing phosphorus), based on Irdemez's disclosure which performs a similar electrochemical treatment of reactive phosphorus on aluminum electrodes, and which optimizes over the same parameter and demonstrates that such optimization can achieve a removal efficiency of 99.9% or 100.0% for reactive phosphorus. It has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Double Patenting
The legal basis for the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, not included in this action, can be found in a previous action.
Claims 1, 4-12 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-14 of U.S. Patent 11,225,420 B2 to Borras et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 12, 16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent 11,220,443 B2 to Borras et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12, 17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 11-14, and 18-19 of copending Application No. 17/554,229. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 17 March 2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under §103, have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in further view of Murray Jr.
Applicant argues that the applied references fail to disclose the entirety of the claimed method. In particular, none of the applied references teach the claimed feature of an electrically insulating connector that physically connects the electrodes together while maintaining gaps between them so that the first cathode, the anode, and the second cathode do not directly touch one another.
We find this argument persuasive. Kump, who discloses a first cathode, an anode, and a second cathode held in a spaced arrangement with gaps between them, teaches that the connectors that physically hold the electrodes in position are made of brass. The applied references therefore fail to teach electrically insulating connectors as claimed.
However upon further review of the art we find that Murray junior discloses a similar electrochemical water treatment device comprising parallel electrode plates which are held in a spaced apart relationship, and wherein the connectors holding the plates in place are made of insulating nylon. New §103 grounds are applied based on the previous references in further view of Murray Jr.
Conclusion
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 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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795