DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 06/30/2025, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-9 and 12-17 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant argues that reference Liu does not teach a specific surface area of adsorption capacity as claimed by Applicant (pg. 8 of 23). This argument is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim. Furthermore, the porous carbon material (PCM) of Liu may have a specific surface area of 200-800 m2/g (Liu, [0051]).
In response to applicant's argument that Liu’s PCM is designed for H2O2 generation to prevent fouling, not for high-capacity adsorption (pgs. 8-10 and 15 of 23), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, the PCM of Liu is also designed for adsorption, because as contaminated water flows through the PCM cathode, contaminants are adsorbed onto the PCM and are mineralized (Liu, [0062]), and because Liu teaches that a significant feature of the system is continuous removal of chemical and biological contaminants and constant availability of purified water achieved via the adsorption of contaminants inside the PCM (Liu, [0065]).
The Applicant points to paragraph [0066] of Liu, stating that the PCM of Liu has low adsorption capacity as it becomes fouled quickly (pgs. 8 and 13 of 23). The aforementioned paragraph of Liu does not mention quick fouling and only mention constant cathode regeneration by constantly removing biofouling and chemical fouling by advanced oxidation processes (Liu, [0066]).
The Applicant argues that reference Gonzalez-Martin does not address the claimed high adsorption capacity (pg. 16 of 23). This argument is unpersuasive because Gonzalez-Martin was not relied upon to teach the claimed adsorption capacity.
The Applicant argues that reference Huang does not teach or suggest the claimed filter’s high adsorption capacity or its regeneration via electrolysis (pgs. 17-18 of 23). This argument is unpersuasive because Huang was not relied upon to teach a high adsorption capacity and regeneration via electrolysis.
In response to applicant's argument that Huang is nonanalogous art because Huang is concerned with PFAS (pgs. 17-18 of 23), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, pg. 1 of the specification dated 03/17/2022 states that the present invention concerns a reactor allowing frontal filtration for adsorption of pollutants and electrolysis for removal of organic pollutants. Huang also relates to a reactor (abstract) allowing frontal filtration (Huang, Fig. 21A, [0032]) for adsorption of pollutants and electrolysis for removal of organic pollutants (Huang, [0072-0074]. Note that the contaminants of Huang are not limited to PFAS and can include substituted phenols, see Huang, [0064] and [0072]). Thus, Huang is considered to be reasonably pertinent to the instant application.
The Applicant argues that references Alwin and Vecitis do not suggest the claimed activated carbon fiber filter with 50-500 mg/g capacity (pgs. 18-19 of 23). This argument is unpersuasive because Alwin and Vecitis were not relied upon to teach an activated carbon fiber filter with 50-500 mg/g capacity.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (pg. 20 of 23), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim 5
The Applicant argues that reference Oturan does not teach or suggest a 50-500 mg/g adsorption capacity and does not address the regeneration of a high-capacity filter within a single reactor (pg. 20 of 23). This argument is unpersuasive because Oturan was not relied upon to teach these limitations.
Claims 6 and 9
The Applicant argues that reference Clifford does not teach a recirculation circuit with gas bubble evacuation or the specific adsorption capacity claimed (pgs. 20-21 of 23). This argument is unpersuasive because Clifford teaches a recirculation circuit (Clifford, Fig.) and was not relied upon for gas bubble evacuation or the specific adsorption capacity claimed.
Claim 8
The Applicant argues that reference Carson does not teach the claimed adsorption capacity or recirculation circuit for gas evacuation (pg. 21 of 23). This argument is unpersuasive because Carson was not relied upon to teach these limitations.
Claim 13
The Applicant argues that reference Nyberg does not teach claimed adsorption capacity or recirculation circuit (pg. 21 of 23). This argument is unpersuasive because Nyberg was not relied upon to teach these limitations.
Response to Amendment
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 1-9 and 12-17 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. Claim 1 reads “adsorption of organic pollutants in an amount of 50-500 mg per g of activated carbon”. The Applicant’s remarks, dated 06/30/2025, includes a sample calculation from the graph in Fig. 22, alleging that C/C0 is close to 0 for 15 hours and resulting in an accumulation of 170 mg of phenol per g of activated carbon (remarks, 06/30/2025, pg. 11 of 23). However, Fig. 22 shows C/C0 increasing over time and deviating from 0, such as the C/C0 of the initial activated carbon being approximately 0.20 just before the 900 minute mark.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of independent Claim 1, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "targeted electrolysis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the activated carbon layer” in line 19, but previously, Claim 1 refers to “activated carbon layers” in line 17. It is unclear as to which of the activated carbon layers has a specific surface area greater than 600 m2g-1, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “ a porous filter, having activated carbon layers allowing the adsorption of organic pollutants during the flow of fluid to be treated, to preconcentrate the pollutants on activated carbon fibers”. It is unclear whether the activated carbon layers and the activated carbon fibers are the same or distinct, rendering the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of independent Claim 1, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20180222781A1 (‘Liu’) in view of U.S. Publication US20150329364A1 (‘Dong’) and in further view of U.S. Patent US5702587A (‘Clifford’) and in further view of U.S. Patent US6149810A (‘Gonzalez-Martin’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 14-17, Liu teaches a column reactor (Fig. 1, [0037], continuous water purification system 10) allowing the continuous frontal filtration of a flowing fluid (Fig. 1, [0038]) by adsorption of organic pollutants contained in the flowing fluid on a filter ([0062], [0065] and [0069]) followed by electrolysis for regeneration of the filter ([0065-0066]) and degradation and mineralization of organic pollutants ([0061-0062]), the column reactor comprising:
a vertically positioned chamber (Figs. 1 and 6), with at least one inlet (Fig. 1, [0038], inlet 22) delivering a fluid into the chamber and at least one outlet (Fig. 1, [0038], outlet 24) for evacuating the fluid from the chamber;
an electrical power supply (Fig. 1, [0042], voltage source);
a circuit (Fig. 1) for circulating a fluid to be treated by adsorption of organic pollutants on the filter, allowing the passage of the fluid to be treated through the chamber ([0038] and [0043]);
a fluid transport system (Fig. 6, [0073], water pump 214);
all the fluid to be treated during filtration as well as the electrolyte solution and organic pollutants desorbed during electrolysis pass successively through all the elements of the chamber (Fig. 1), which comprises for the fluid transport system at least:
a porous filter (Fig. 5, [0043], porous carbon material (PCM) 52), having activated carbon layers allowing the adsorption of organic pollutants during the flow of fluid to be treated ([0062]), to preconcentrate the pollutants on activated carbon before the targeted electrolysis ([0062]), the activated carbon layer having a specific surface area greater than 600 m2·g-1 ([0051]),
the activated carbon layers being electrically connected to the electrical power supply (Fig. 1, [0042]), in order to polarize them during electrolysis ([0042]), the filter being only the cathode during:
electrolysis ([0042]), and
the passage of the electrolyte solution and desorbed organic pollutants allowing desorption of adsorbed organic pollutants ([0062]), regeneration of the filter, and degradation and mineralization of organic pollutants ([0066]),
the activated carbon layers being filters during a continuous filtration mode ([0065] and [0069]) of the fluid circulating through the circulation circuit for adsorption of organic pollutants on the filter ([0062]),
an anode (Fig. 1, [0037], anode 14), upstream or downstream of the activated carbon layers (Fig. 1) and which the anode is separated from the activated carbon layers (Fig. 5, [0059], spacer 106),
the anode comprising at least one layer of anode material and openings ([0041]) allowing:
the flow of fluid during filtration and the flow of solution and desorbed organic pollutants during electrolysis ([0038] and [0041]) when the activated carbon layers is a cathode ([0043]),
the anode material and the activated carbon layers being electrically connected to the electrical power supply ([0042]), in order to polarize them during electrolysis for degradation and mineralization of desorbed organic pollutants from the activated carbon layers ([0062-0063]),
the anode and the filter are placed horizontally within the vertically positioned chamber of the column reactor (Fig. 1),
a separator element (Fig. 5, [0059], spacer 106), located between the anode and the activated carbon layers (Fig. 5), allowing the activated carbon layers used as a cathode and the anode to be electrically connected only by the electrolyte solution during electrolysis ([0059] and [0089]), and
the column reactor including a control unit (Fig. 6, [0068], control unit 211) connected to the circulation circuit, to the fluid transport system ([0077]) and the electrical power supply ([0077]), so that a continuous filtration operating mode or an electrolysis operating mode can be set up ([0077]), by action of the control unit on the circulation circuit as well as on the fluid transport system and electrical power supply ([0081]), so as to operate in said two modes:
continuous filtration mode of the fluid circulating through the circulation circuit for adsorption of organic pollutants on the filter ([0065-0066]), or
electrolysis mode, for desorption of organic pollutants, regeneration of the filter, and degradation and mineralization of organic pollutants ([0061-0062] and [0094]), by applying an electric current between the filter used as a cathode and the anode ([0061-0062] and [0094]).
However, Liu does not teach an adsorption of organic pollutants in an amount of 50-500 mg per g of activated carbon, activated carbon fibers, a recirculation circuit of an electrolyte solution for electrolysis, connecting the outlet to the inlet, and passing through an open buffer volume, allowing the evacuation of gas bubbles generated during electrolysis, ensuring an upward flow of the electrolyte solution and the desorbed organic pollutants within the chamber comprising the anode and the activated carbon layers, which is the cathode during the electrolysis, in order to facilitate the evacuation of gas bubbles formed during electrolysis in the open buffer volume of the recirculation circuit; solenoid valves; with continuous recirculation of the electrolyte solution and desorbed organic pollutants through the filter and the anode of the chamber and then through the recirculation circuit.
Dong teaches that a porous carbon material derived from carbonizing resorcinol formaldehyde polymer (see Liu, [0043] and Dong, [0122] and [0025]) can adsorb organic pollutants in an amount of 50-500 mg per g of activated carbon ([0181-0182], Tables 5-6) and can take the form of activated carbon fibers (Dong, [0108]).
Clifford also relates to a column reactor allowing the continuous frontal filtration of a flowing fluid by adsorption of organic pollutants contained in the flowing fluid on a filter followed by electrolysis for regeneration of the filter and degradation and mineralization of organic pollutants, the column reactor comprising (abstract and Fig.):
a recirculation circuit (Fig, C9/L17-C10/L7) of an electrolyte solution for electrolysis, connecting the outlet to the inlet, and passing through a buffer volume (Fig, C9/L19-44, reservoir 10);
the anode material and the activated carbon layers being electrically connected to the electrical power supply, in order to polarize them only (C9/L17-24, during adsorption mode, each electrolytic cell functions merely as a container for activated carbon) during electrolysis for degradation and mineralization of desorbed organic pollutants from the activated carbon layers (C11/L20-64);
with continuous recirculation of the electrolyte solution and desorbed organic pollutants (C9/L33-44) through the filter and the anode of the chamber and then through the recirculation circuit (C9/L17-C10/L7).
Gonzalez-Martin teaches an open buffer volume (Fig. 6, C22/L61-C23/L5, tank 74), allowing the evacuation of gas bubbles generated during electrolysis (Fig. 6, C23/L1-5), and ensuring an upward flow of the electrolyte solution within the chamber comprising the anode in order to facilitate the evacuation of gas bubbles formed during electrolysis in the open buffer volume of the recirculation circuit (C21/L29-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the reactor of Liu can achieve adsorption of organic pollutants in an amount of 50-500 mg per g of activated carbon and be in the form of activated carbon fibers, as demonstrated by Dong, because the PCM of Liu and activated carbon product of Dong can both be synthesized from carbonizing resorcinol formaldehyde polymer (see Liu, [0043] and Dong, [0122] and [0025]). It would have been obvious to combine the reactor of Liu and Dong and the recirculation circuit of Clifford so the electrolyte can be stored in a reservoir for future use (Clifford, C9/L19-C10/L7). It would have been obvious to connect the control unit of Liu and Dong to the valves of Clifford (Clifford, C9/L17-44) so opening appropriate valves can allow electrolyte enter the chamber (Clifford, C9/L27-51. Note that the control unit of Liu may control the flow rate of water pump, Liu, [0076] and [0081]). It would have been obvious to polarize the anode and activated carbon layers of Liu and Dong only during electrolysis, as demonstrated by Clifford, to desorb and decompose oxidizable, organic pollutants (Clifford, C8/L18-27) by generating hydroxyl radicals after operation of the cells in adsorption mode (Clifford, C9/L51-61. Note that Liu also generates hydroxyl radicals to degrade contaminants, Liu, [0061] and [0063]) and to strip contaminants from the carbon adsorbent into the electrolyte, thus making the contaminants more amenable to destruction (Clifford, C11/L41-47). Initial desorption and destruction of contaminants will allow additional amounts of contaminants to desorb and to be subsequently destroyed, the process continuing until the adsorbent capacity of the carbon is regenerated (Clifford, C14/L46-57). It would have been obvious to combine the open buffer volume of Gonzalez-Martin and the reactor of Liu, Dong and Clifford so that gaseous oxidation products do not become trapped in the cell (Gonzalez-Martin, C21/L29-34).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: the anode comprises a perforated material or a mesh screen on which the anode material is deposited (Liu, [0041]).
Claim 3: an electrode placed downstream of another electrode relative to the direction of fluid flow during regeneration is:
- the anode, thus comprising a perforated material or a mesh screen with openings/mesh greater than 0.15 cm2 allowing the passage of gas bubbles formed during electrolysis; or
- the filter used as a cathode and the fluid transport system is configured to allow the recirculation circuit to reach a filtration velocity of electrolyte solution through the filter greater than 2 m/h during electrolysis (See Final Rejection, dated 03/28/2025).
Claim 5: at least one of the activated carbon layers is formed of activated carbon fibers (Dong, [0108]).
Claim 6: at least one of the activated carbon layers is formed of granular activated carbon (Dong, [0108]).
Claim 7: the chamber comprises a plurality of anode/filter pairs, connected in series, the two faces of an electrode being polarizable during electrolysis (Liu, [0037]).
Claim 9: the pH of the electrolyte solution is adjusted to a pH higher than 9, in order to promote the desorption of organic pollutants during electrolysis (Clifford, C9/L61-64. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pH of the electrolyte solution to a pH higher than 9, as demonstrated by Clifford, in the reactor of Liu, Dong, Clifford and Gonzalez-Martin because at high pH, hydroxyl radicals formed in the electrolyte at capable of oxidizing organic compounds (Clifford, C4/L43-47 and C5/L40-57)).
Claim 14: the fluid is a gas or a liquid (Liu, abstract and [0039]).
Claim 15: a system comprising reactors according to Claim 1 (Liu, [0068], Fig. 6, modular water purification system 200. The ECR 206 includes an anode 14 and a cathode 16 arranged as shown in Figs. 1-4 (Liu, [0071]). Additional electrodes 14, 16 can be employed, Liu, [0037]).
Claim 16: the fluid recirculation circuits of the reactors are connected, so as to provide a shared open buffer volume (Clifford, Fig).
Claim 17: the reactors are placed in series or in parallel with respect to the flow of the fluid to be treated (Liu, [0037], additional electrodes can be employed).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20180222781A1 (‘Liu’), U.S. Publication US20150329364A1 (‘Dong’), U.S. Patent US5702587A (‘Clifford’) and U.S. Patent US6149810A (‘Gonzalez-Martin’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20120234694A1 (‘Vecitus’) or U.S. Publication US20190185351A1 (‘Huang’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Liu, Dong, Clifford and Gonzalez-Martin teaches the reactor of Claim 1, except that the anode material is made of boron-doped diamond or sub-stoichiometric titanium oxide allowing the degradation and mineralization of organic pollutants.
Vecitus also relates to a column reactor (Fig. 1A) allowing the continuous frontal filtration of a flowing fluid by adsorption of organic pollutants contained in the flowing fluid on a filter (abstract) followed by electrolysis for regeneration of the filter and degradation and mineralization of organic pollutants ([0378]), the column reactor comprising: an anode material is made of boron-doped diamond ([0443]) or sub-stoichiometric titanium oxide allowing the degradation and mineralization of organic pollutants.
Huang also relates to a column reactor (Fig. 23) allowing the continuous frontal filtration of a flowing fluid by adsorption of organic pollutants contained in the flowing fluid on a filter ([0072]) followed by electrolysis for regeneration of the filter and degradation and mineralization of organic pollutants ([0073]), the column reactor comprising: an anode material is made of boron-doped diamond ([0054]) or sub-stoichiometric titanium oxide ([0049]) allowing the degradation and mineralization of organic pollutants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the anode material of Liu, Dong, Clifford and Gonzalez-Martin to be made of boron-doped diamond, as demonstrated by Vecitus or Huang, or sub-stoichiometric titanium oxide, as demonstrated by Huang, because BDD anodes have electrooxidative performance enhancements towards some organic pollutants (Vecitus, [0390] and [0443]) and do not generate harmful active chlorine species (Vecitus, [0004]), and because sub-stoichiometric titanium oxide anodes have high conductivity, chemical inertness, and low cost of production (Huang, [0056]).
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20180222781A1 (‘Liu’), U.S. Publication US20150329364A1 (‘Dong’), U.S. Patent US5702587A (‘Clifford’) and U.S. Patent US6149810A (‘Gonzalez-Martin’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20180072593A1 (‘Alwin’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Liu, Dong, Clifford and Gonzalez-Martin teaches the reactor of Claim 1, except that at least one anode, at least one cathode and the electrical power supply are included in the open buffer volume in order to facilitate the degradation and mineralization of organic pollutants during electrolysis.
Alwin also relates to a column reactor (abstract), wherein at least one cathode is included in the open buffer volume ([0055] and [0078-0079], buffer reservoir comprises an adsorbent, such as activated carbon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the open buffer volume of Liu, Dong, Clifford and Gonzalez-Martin to include at least one anode, at least one cathode and the electrical power supply to purify components not handled by the reactor (Alwin, [0013] and [0078]) then regenerate the active carbon having oxidizable, organic pollutants adsorbed thereon (Clifford, abstract) without needing the activated carbon to leave the container in which it is used to purify (Clifford, C6/L30-39). The activated carbon can be reused without any substantial loss of activity (Clifford, C6/L19-30).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Liu, Dong, Clifford and Gonzalez-Martin teaches the reactor of Claim 1, except that the control unit is able to reverse the direction of circulation flow in the reactor between the passage of fluid in the reactor in the filtration mode, and the passage of electrolyte solution in electrolysis mode.
Alwin teaches that the control unit ([0058]) is able to reverse the direction of circulation flow in the reactor ([0013], [0022] and [0025], regeneration may include a reverse flow direction) between the passage of fluid in the reactor in the filtration mode, and the passage of electrolyte solution in electrolysis mode ([0058], switch from regeneration to purification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control unit of Liu, Dong, Clifford and Gonzalez-Martin to be is able to reverse the direction of circulation flow in the reactor between the passage of fluid in the reactor in the filtration mode, and the passage of electrolyte solution in electrolysis mode, as demonstrated by Alwin, to reverse the direction of circulation flow in the reactor when reversing a flow direction is desired (Alwin, [0013]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20180222781A1 (‘Liu’), U.S. Publication US20150329364A1 (‘Dong’), U.S. Patent US5702587A (‘Clifford’) and U.S. Patent US6149810A (‘Gonzalez-Martin’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent US6309532B1 (‘Tran’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Liu, Dong, Clifford and Gonzalez-Martin teaches the reactor of Claim 1, except that the control unit is connected to a sensor for measuring the concentration of organic pollutants at the outlet, the electrolysis mode being activated when the organic pollutant concentration goes above a given value, the filtration mode being activated when the organic pollutant concentration goes below a given value.
Tran also relates to a column reactor (Fig. 3) allowing the continuous frontal filtration of a flowing fluid by adsorption of organic pollutants contained in the flowing fluid on a filter (C14/L5-8) followed by electrolysis for regeneration of the filter (abstract) and degradation and mineralization of organic pollutants (C6/L1-L16 and C39/L63-C40/L11), wherein the control unit (C14/L35-44, control system) is connected to a sensor for measuring the concentration of organic pollutants at the outlet (C15/L64-C16/L6), the electrolysis mode being activated when the organic pollutant concentration goes above a given value, the filtration mode being activated when the organic pollutant concentration goes below a given value (C16/L61-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control unit of Liu, Dong, Clifford and Gonzalez-Martin to be connected to a sensor for measuring the concentration of organic pollutants at the outlet, the electrolysis mode being activated when the organic pollutant concentration goes above a given value, the filtration mode being activated when the organic pollutant concentration goes below a given value, as demonstrated by Tran, so that when the reactor is saturated or it is determined to regenerate the reactor, the purification process can be automatically interrupted as the regeneration process starts (Tran, C16/L61-64).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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 at (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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights