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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 09/16/2025 in which claim 10 has been amended and claims 14-19 have been cancelled, is acknowledged and entered. Currently, claims 10-13 are pending examination. Claims 1-9 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 10-13 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 10 recites that an anode is positioned in proximity to at least one plant extending from the growth media. There is no support for this amendment within the specification.
If Applicant believes there is such support in the originally filed disclosure, it would be wise to note to the Examiner where directly in the specification this is implicitly or explicitly disclosed.
For the purpose of compact prosecution it will be assumed that the plant location in proximity to the anode is disclosed by the specification.
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.
Claim 10 is 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. The statement “the high-performance alloy cathode is a cathode that is made from a metal selected from the group consisting of iron, nickel, iron alloys and nickel alloys” describes iron and nickel as high performance alloys however these metals are not alloys.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "growth ions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acar et al. (US 5137608 A), and further in view of Recsetar (WO 2021022169 A1).
Acar discloses a process for the electrochemical decontamination of soil or slurries through the use of an inert anode, a nonreactive cathode, and supplying water to the soil near the anode, by supplying water or an aqueous solution to the soil during electro-osmosis, particularly in an area near the anode. The added water, and its electrolysis result in an acid front moving through the soil over time from the anode to the cathode, permitting contaminants to be desorbed and transported to the cathode, where further reactions take place (Acar abstract and column 1 lines 46-53).
For claim 10, Acar teaches a method for treating a growth media containing an aqueous solution and a plurality of transport ions therein (Acar Abstract, Col. 1 Lns. 46-48, Col. 15, Lns. 56-58, a trench of solution or ground water may be used to provide electric contact between the electrode and the soil; Col. 2, Lns. 36-38, electrolyzable solutes in the pore fluid (e.g., metal ions, Cl-, organic matter, pollutants, dissolved oxygen, etc.)), the method comprising: submerging a high-performance alloy cathode and an oxidation resistant anode in the growth media at least partially (Col. 2, Ln. 41, electrodes inserted in a water-saturated soil mass; Col. 15, Lns. 8-11, non-reactive cathode, in other words, one made of a conductive material that will not reactor dissolve substantially under the pH and other conditions used, for example, stainless steel; Col. 14, Lns. 64-66, inert anode, one which will not substantially react or dissolve electrochemically), connecting the high-performance alloy cathode and the oxidation resistant anode to the power supply to form an electrical circuit with a potential difference between the high-performance alloy cathode and the oxidation resistant anode (Fig. 3, Electrodes are connected to a power supply; Col. 5, Lns. 21-23, The electric current was applied to the cell (Fig. 4), development of the net cell electrical potential gradient, and total flow versus time), and supplying power to the oxidation resistant anode to attract the transport ions to treat the growth media (Col. 5, Lns. 21-23, The electric current was applied to the cell by Coulostat having a maximum voltage output of 150 volts; Col. 10, Lns. 4-5, migration, and advection of the H+ ions into the specimen at the anode; Col. 1 1, Lns. 8-12, The removal of adsorbed Pb(ll) by electrokinetic soil processing first involves its desorption into the pore fluid by the H+ ions advancing across the specimen, and its subsequent flushing to the cathode by migration and advection). Acar further teaches that plant nutrients can be moved by electro-osmosis (Acer Col. 15 Lns. 63-65). Since Acar discloses Pb(NO3)2 and removal of the Pb from the nitrate ion, there are other ions in the solution i.e. nitrate ions that migrating to the anode as Pb ions migrate to the cathode (Acar Col. 13 Lns. 45-50 and Col. 10 Lns. 63-64). It would therefore be obvious that nitrate ions are present and transported to the anode.
Acar does not teach that plants extending from the growth media.
Recsetar discloses a phyto-mediated wastewater treatment bioreactor (PWBR) for treating wastewater effluent and agricultural effluent (Recsetar abstract)
Recsetar further teaches that plants extending from the growth media (Recsetar abstract, [0007], [0043], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Recsetar of adding plants to the growth medium to those of Acar to aid with stabilization and/or uptake and bioaccumulation of contaminants from the wastewater (Recsetar [0007-0008], [0043], [0044], and [0065]).
For claim 11, Acar teaches all the limitations of claim 10.
Acar further teaches that the oxidation resistant anode includes materials selected from the group consisting of graphite and noble metal alloys (Acar Col. 14, Lns. 64-68, use an inert anode in this process, in other words, one which will not substantially react or dissolve electrochemically. Examples of materials from which such inert anodes may be made include carbon (such as graphite), noble metals, platinum group metals).
For claim 12, Acar teaches all the limitations of claim 11.
Acar further teaches noble metals alloys include alloys selected from the group consisting of gold, platinum, silver, palladium, iridium, rhodium, and ruthenium ( Acar Col. 14 Lns 65-70). It is also desirable to use a non-reactive cathode, in other words, one made of a conductive material that will not react or dissolve substantially under the pH and other conditions used, for example, stainless steel, graphite, or materials similar to those listed above for anodes., It is also desirable to use a non-reactive cathode, in other words, one made of a conductive material that will not react or dissolve substantially under the pH and other conditions used, for example, stainless steel, graphite, or materials similar to those listed above for anodes, and Acar Col. 14, Lns. 64-68, use an inert anode in this process, in other words, one which will not substantially react or dissolve electrochemically. Examples of materials from which such inert anodes may be made include carbon (such as graphite), noble metals, platinum group metals).
For claim 13, Acar teaches all the limitations of claim 11.
Acar further teaches the noble metal alloys include metals that have filled electronic d-bands (Acar Col. 15 Lns. 8-13 It is also desirable to use a non-reactive cathode, in other words, one made of a conductive material that will not react or dissolve substantially under the pH and other conditions used, for example, stainless steel, graphite, or materials similar to those listed above for anodes, and Acar Col. 14, Lns. 64-68, use an inert anode in this process, in other words, one which will not substantially react or dissolve electrochemically. Examples of materials from which such inert anodes may be made include carbon (such as graphite), noble metals, platinum group metals.) Nobel metals such as Ag, Au, and Cu have filled d-orbitals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-19 under 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Acar et al. (US 5137608 A), and Recsetar (WO 2021022169 A1).
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 ABELLINE K FIONAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm with every other Friday off.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/ABELLINE KATUSIIME FIONAH/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759