DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/04/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 11/04/2025. Claims 1-8 are pending in the current Office Action. Claims 1 and 3 were amended by Applicant.
Status of the Rejection
The rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejections are established.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6 and claim 3 lines 5-6 recite “a collecting step for obtaining simultaneously concentrating”, but should recite “a collecting step for obtaining and simultaneously concentrating” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 1 line 11 recites “I2”, but should recite “I2” to correct the formatting;
Claim 3 lines 3 and 10 recite “I2”, but should recite “I2” to correct the formatting.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation “the iodine acquisition step” in line 2. However, claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites two distinct “an iodine acquisition” steps, the first in lines 5-6 and the second in line 10. It is unclear to which “an iodine acquisition step” the limitation “the iodine acquisition step” in claim 2 refers.
Claim 2 is therefore indefinite.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igari (JP 2002/187707 A) in view of Zhang et al. (“Separation of divalent ions from seawater concentrate to enhance the purity of coarse salt by electrodialysis with monovalent-selective membranes.” Desalination 411 (2017) 28–37), and Zhilin (RU 2132819 C1), and as evidenced by, in the case of claim 6, GOST (GOST 13830-91 “STATE STANDARD OF THE UNION OF CCP: FOOD TABLE SALT” IPC Publishing House of Standards (1997)).
Note that citations to Igari refer to the Office provided machine translation, which is considered to provide greater clarity than the translation provided on the IDS filed 06/27/2022 due to improvements in machine translation between the time the IDS was filed and the mailing date of the current Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Igari teaches a method for producing molecular iodine (I2) (abstract), comprising:
producing the molecular iodine (I2) using underground brine (“brine pumped up from underground” para. 20 and “the brine associated with natural gas” para. 25) containing iodine ions (“an iodine concentration of 10 ppm,” para. 25) and sodium chloride (“31,900 ppm of NaCl” Id.), wherein
the method comprises a series of steps including, in this order,
an iodine acquisition step (“iodine extraction using a stripping tower,” para. 25, see also Fig. 1 and paras. 8-11),
a collecting step for obtaining and simultaneously concentrating iodine ions and sodium chloride contained in the underground brine (“the iodine is concentrated in the dissolved matter concentrate” para. 15, and see below) to which no oxidizing agent is added (see below) by using an electrodialysis device (“electrodialysis cell 10” para. 10 and Figs. 1 and 2) to obtain concentrated brine from which organic matter has been removed (“The brine contains insoluble matter such as organic decomposition products, and in the insoluble matter removal tank 1, these insoluble matter are removed” para. 12),
and an iodine acquisition step for obtaining the molecular iodine (I2) by mixing an oxidizing agent with an aqueous solution (“3.0 equivalents of chlorine gas (pH 6.6) was added to the solution to liberate and collect iodine” para. 25 and “6 denotes an iodine expulsion device,” para. 10 and Fig. 1).
Regarding the limitation “a collecting step for obtaining simultaneously concentrating iodine ions and sodium chloride contained in the underground brine to which no oxidizing agent is added by using an electrodialysis device”, Igari teaches the brine subjected to the electrodialysis step comprises sodium chloride (see e.g., para. 25). The electrodialysis step will therefore necessarily concentrate both the iodine ions and the sodium chloride, as evidenced by e.g., Zhang Fig. 1. Igari therefore teaches the limitation “a collecting step for obtaining simultaneously concentrating iodine ions and sodium chloride contained in the underground brine to which no oxidizing agent is added by using an electrodialysis device”.
Regarding the limitation “underground brine to which no oxidizing agent is added”, Igari does not teach the addition of an oxidizing agent to the brine during the collecting step.
Igari does not teach the method is a method for co-producing molecular iodine (I2) and edible salt, the method produces edible salt in parallel with the molecular iodine (I2), or the method comprises a roasting step for obtaining the edible salt comprising obtaining solid salt by evaporating and removing water, wherein the roasting step is provided after the collecting step for obtaining and simultaneously concentrating iodine ions and sodium chloride.
However, Zhang teaches edible salt can be suitably recovered as a value-added product from the concentrate of an electrodialysis system by using a roasting step comprising obtaining solid salt by evaporating and removing water after the electrodialysis step (“the final concentrated brine (105 ms/cm) can be used to produce coarse salt (see Fig. 9) after evaporation process.” § 3.4. para. 1, see also § 4 and abstract).
Furthermore, Zhilin teaches that it is advantageous to produce edible salt in parallel with the production of iodine from underground brines (“From iodine brines, iodine, bromine can also be obtained; after additional purification of the brine, food grade salt can be obtained” p. 1 lines 34-60 and “Industrial underground iodine-containing water” p. 3 lines 12-18) by using a roasting step comprising obtaining solid salt by evaporating and removing water (“crystallization in a single-stage evaporator;” p. 2 lines 36-39), because this allows for the convenient production of iodized salt as a value-added product (“Wet crystals of sodium chloride, treated with a solution of potassium iodide, enter the dryer, then they are packaged and packed. The finished product in an amount of 30.000 t / year corresponds to the requirements of GOST 13830-91 cort 55 "Extra" iodized.” p. 3 lines 20-56).
As Igari teaches a method of producing molecular iodine from underground brine, Igari is analogous art to the instant invention. As Zhang teaches a method of producing edible salt from brine using an electrodialysis step and a roasting step, Zhang is analogous art to the instant invention. As Zhilin teaches a method of co-producing molecular iodine and edible salt from underground brine, Zhilin 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 method of Igari such that the method is a method for co-producing molecular iodine (I2) and edible salt and the method produces edible salt in parallel with the molecular iodine (I2), by adding a roasting step for obtaining edible salt comprising obtaining solid salt by evaporating and removing water after the collecting step for obtaining and simultaneously concentrating iodine ions and sodium chloride, as taught by Zhang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Zhang teaches it is desirable to recover edible salt from the brine produced by an electrodialysis system by using a roasting step, and because Zhilin teaches that it is particularly desirable to recover edible salt from in combination with the recovery of iodine from underground brines, because this allows the production of iodized salt as a value-added product from the waste stream. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., adding a roasting step after the electrodialysis step of Igari, as taught by Zhang) to yield predictable results (recovering edible salt) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Igari does not teach the iodine acquisition step for obtaining the molecular iodine is performed after the roasting step.
However, based on Zhang’s teaching that the roasting step is performed after the electrodialysis step (i.e., the “collecting step”), only two possibilities exist for the placement of the roasting step, either:
a) “iodine acquisition step” is performed after the roasting step (as required by the claim); or
b) the roasting step is performed after the “iodine acquisition step”.
It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform the “iodine acquisition step” after the roasting step, because only two possibilities exist based on the teachings of Zhang. Selecting an option from a finite number of predictable, art recognized solutions to a problem with a reasonable expectation of success establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(E)). Furthermore, “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” (MPEP § 2114.04(IV)(C)).
Modified Igari does not teach the concentrated brine obtained from the collecting step has had transition metal ions removed.
However, Zhang further teaches the ion exchange membranes are monovalent selective ion exchange membranes (title), which provides the predictable benefit of retaining multivalent ions in the diluate stream, thereby improving the purity of the edible salt recovered from the concentration stream (“mentioned above, a low current density (i.e. 4 mA/cm2) can separate divalent ions from monovalent ions effectively with the CIMS/ACS membranes stack through the first-stage operation, which will improve the purity of coarse salt” § 3.4. para. 1). As noted by the instant specification (see e.g., para. 58), the use of monovalent selective ion exchange membranes necessarily results in the removal of multivalent transition metal ions.
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 method of Igari, such that the ion exchange membranes are monovalent selective ion exchange membranes, as taught by Zhang, and therefore such that the concentrated brine obtained from the collecting step has had transition metal ions removed. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the purity of the edible salt produced, as taught by Zhang. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using monovalent selective ion exchange membranes, as taught by Zhang, in place of the ion exchange membranes of Igari) to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 has been interpreted as “wherein wastewater after the iodine acquisition step for obtaining the molecular iodine (I2) by mixing an oxidizing agent with an aqueous solution …”.
Modified Igari does not explicitly teach wastewater after the iodine acquisition step for obtaining the molecular iodine (I2) by mixing an oxidizing agent with an aqueous solution after the roasting step is recycled to the collecting step or the roasting step.
However, Zhilin further teaches that edible salt can be recovered from the water produced by an iodine acquisition step (“solution of sodium chloride after extraction of iodine and bromine is subjected to concentration, followed by crystallization in a single-stage evaporator” p. 2 lines 36-39).
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 method of Igari, such that the wastewater after the iodine acquisition step for obtaining the molecular iodine (I2) by mixing an oxidizing agent with an aqueous solution is recycled to the roasting step. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering (additional) edible salt from the brine, as taught by Zhilin.
Regarding claim 3, Igari teaches a method for producing molecular iodine (I2) (abstract) comprising:
producing the molecular iodine (I2) using underground brine (“brine pumped up from underground” para. 20 and “the brine associated with natural gas” para. 25) containing iodine ions (“an iodine concentration of 10 ppm,” para. 25) and sodium chloride (“31,900 ppm of NaCl” Id.), wherein
the method comprises a series of steps including, in this order,
a collecting step for obtaining and simultaneously concentrating iodine ions and sodium chloride contained in the underground brine (“the iodine is concentrated in the dissolved matter concentrate” para. 15, and see below) to which no oxidizing agent is added (see below) by using an electrodialysis device (“electrodialysis cell 10” para. 10 and Figs. 1 and 2) to obtain concentrated brine from which organic matter has been removed (“The brine contains insoluble matter such as organic decomposition products, and in the insoluble matter removal tank 1, these insoluble matter are removed” para. 12),
and an iodine acquisition step for obtaining the molecular iodine (I2) by mixing an oxidizing agent with an aqueous solution (“3.0 equivalents of chlorine gas (pH 6.6) was added to the solution to liberate and collect iodine” para. 25 and “6 denotes an iodine expulsion device,” para. 10 and Fig. 1) after the collecting step (see Fig. 1).
Regarding the limitation “a collecting step for obtaining simultaneously concentrating iodine ions and sodium chloride contained in the underground brine to which no oxidizing agent is added by using an electrodialysis device”, Igari teaches the brine subjected to the electrodialysis step comprises sodium chloride (see e.g., para. 25). The electrodialysis step will therefore necessarily concentrate both the iodine ions and the sodium chloride, as evidenced by e.g., Zhang Fig. 1. Igari therefore teaches the limitation “a collecting step for obtaining simultaneously concentrating iodine ions and sodium chloride contained in the underground brine to which no oxidizing agent is added by using an electrodialysis device”.
Regarding the limitation “underground brine to which no oxidizing agent is added”, Igari does not teach the addition of an oxidizing agent to the brine during the collecting step.
Igari does not teach the method is a method for co-producing molecular iodine (I2) and edible salt, the method produces edible salt in parallel with the molecular iodine (I2), or the method comprises a roasting step for obtaining the edible salt comprising obtaining solid salt by evaporating and removing water, wherein the roasting step is provided after the iodine acquisition step.
However, Zhang teaches edible salt can be suitably recovered as a value-added product from the concentrate of an electrodialysis system by using a roasting step comprising obtaining solid salt by evaporating and removing water after the electrodialysis step (“the final concentrated brine (105 ms/cm) can be used to produce coarse salt (see Fig. 9) after evaporation process.” § 3.4. para. 1, see also § 4 and abstract).
Furthermore, Zhilin teaches that it is advantageous to produce edible salt in parallel with the recovery of iodine from underground brines (“From iodine brines, iodine, bromine can also be obtained; after additional purification of the brine, food grade salt can be obtained” p. 1 lines 34-60 and “Industrial underground iodine-containing water” p. 3 lines 12-18) by including a roasting step comprising obtaining solid salt by evaporating and removing water (“crystallization in a single-stage evaporator;” p. 2 lines 36-39) after the iodine acquisition step (“solution of sodium chloride after extraction of iodine and bromine is subjected to concentration, followed by crystallization in a single-stage evaporator” p. 2 lines 36-39), because this allows for the convenient production of iodized salt as a value-added product (“Wet crystals of sodium chloride, treated with a solution of potassium iodide, enter the dryer, then they are packaged and packed. The finished product in an amount of 30.000 t / year corresponds to the requirements of GOST 13830-91 cort 55 "Extra" iodized.” p. 3 lines 20-56).
As Igari teaches a method of producing molecular iodine from underground brine, Igari is analogous art to the instant invention. As Zhang teaches a method of producing edible salt from brine using an electrodialysis step and a roasting step, Zhang is analogous art to the instant invention. As Zhilin teaches a method of co-producing molecular iodine and edible salt from underground brine, Zhilin 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 method of Igari such that the method is a method for co-producing molecular iodine (I2) and edible salt and the method produces edible salt in parallel with the molecular iodine (I2), by adding a roasting step for obtaining edible salt comprising obtaining solid salt by evaporating and removing water after the iodine acquisition step, as taught by Zhilin. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Zhang teaches it is desirable to recover edible salt from the brine produced by an electrodialysis system by using a roasting step, and because Zhilin teaches that it is particularly desirable to recover edible salt from in combination with the recovery of iodine from underground brines, because this allows the production of iodized salt as a value-added product from the waste stream. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., adding a roasting step after the iodine acquisition step of Igari, as taught by Zhilin) to yield predictable results (recovering edible salt) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Igari does not teach the concentrated brine obtained from the collecting step has had transition metal ions removed.
However, Zhang further teaches the ion exchange membranes are monovalent selective ion exchange membranes (title), which provides the predictable benefit of retaining multivalent ions in the diluate stream, thereby producing the edible salt from the concentration stream (“mentioned above, a low current density (i.e. 4 mA/cm2) can separate divalent ions from monovalent ions effectively with the CIMS/ACS membranes stack through the first-stage operation, which will improve the purity of coarse salt” § 3.4. para. 1). As noted by the instant specification (see e.g., para. 58), the use of monovalent selective ion exchange membranes necessarily results in the removal of multivalent transition metal ions.
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 method of Igari, such that the ion exchange membranes are monovalent selective ion exchange membranes, as taught by Zhang, and therefore such that the concentrated brine obtained from the collecting step has had transition metal ions removed. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the purity of the edible salt produced, as taught by Zhang. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using monovalent selective ion exchange membranes, as taught by Zhang, in place of the ion exchange membranes of Igari) to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Igari does not teach wastewater after the roasting step is recycled to the collecting step or the iodine acquisition step.
However, Igari further teaches it is beneficial to extract additional iodine from wastewater containing iodine by sending such a wastewater to a collecting step (“it is natural that when producing iodine, it is desired to extract as much iodine as possible from the brine” para. 2 and “concentrating the iodine-containing brine by electrodialysis after iodine has been recovered” para. 26).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, when modifying the method of Igari to comprise a roasting step, to do so such that at least a portion of the wastewater after the roasting step is recycled to the collecting step. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering additional iodine from the wastewater, as taught by Igari.
Regarding claim 5, modified Igari teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Igari further teaches the underground brine contains about 10 mg/L of iodine ions, a value within the claimed range (“an iodine concentration of 10 ppm” para. 25, see calculations below), and about 32 g/L of sodium chloride, a value within the claimed range (“31,900 ppm of NaCl” Id.).
Concentrations in Igari were converted from mass fractions i.e., ppm, to concentrations i.e., g/L or mg/L, by using a density of 1 kg/L for the brine solution i.e., presuming that the density of the brine is sufficiently close to that of pure water as to not affect the conclusion that the values of Igari are within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 6, modified Igari teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Igari does not explicitly teach the edible salt obtained in the roasting step is iodine-containing salt having an iodine ion content of 1 mg/kg or more.
However, Zhilin further teaches it is desirable for the edible salt obtained in the roasting step to have an iodine ion content of 2.30 ± 1.15 mg/kg, a value within the claimed range, to be suitable for sale as iodized salt (“The finished product in an amount of 30.000 t / year corresponds to the requirements of GOST 13830-91 cort "Extra" iodized.” p. 3 lines 20-56 and see below).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, when modifying the method of Igari by adding a roasting step, to do so such that the iodine ion content is 2.30 ± 1.15 mg/kg, a value within the claimed range, as taught by Zhilin. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the produced edible salt could be sold as iodized-salt, as taught by Zhilin. 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 the concentration of iodine ion in the method of Zhilin, Zhilin teaches that the iodine ion concentration complies with the GOST 13830-91 standard for iodized salt. As evidenced by GOST, this standard is 2.30 ± 1.15 mg/kg (“The mass fraction of iodine (23.0±11.5) • 10-4%” § 2.2.4, para above § 2.2.5, see translated excerpt below).
PNG
media_image1.png
97
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
185
1011
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Relevant section of GOST and machine translation thereof.
Regarding claim 7, modified Igari teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Igari further teaches, via Zhang, the concentrated brine from which the transition metal ions and the organic matter have been removed is obtained by using a monovalent ion selective permeable cation exchange membrane in the electrodialysis device in the collecting step (“monovalent selective cation-exchange membranes” § 2.2. para. 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Igari teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Igari further teaches an iodine concentration in the concentrated brine obtained by the electrodialysis device is up to ten times the iodine ion concentration in the underground brine supplied to be treated in the collecting step, a range overlapping the claimed range (“iodine concentration in the iodine-containing brine is about 10 ppm … the iodine is concentrated in the dissolved matter concentrate in the form of IO3- up to about 100 ppm” para. 15).
A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 5, filed 11/04/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks p. 5-10, filed 11/04/2025, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Igari.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 5-8 that Cearnaigh cannot reasonably be combined with the teachings of Zhilin.
Examiner’s Response #1
As the new grounds of rejection do not rely on Cearnaigh, Applicant’s arguments are considered moot.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues on p. 5-7 that, as Zhilin teaches an iodine acquisition step wherein an oxidizing agent is added to the underground brine prior to the collecting step, Zhilin does not teach the limitation “a collecting step … underground brine to which no oxidizing agent is added” as recited in amended claims 1 and 3. Applicant further argues that it is a beneficial feature of the instant invention that no oxidizing agent is added to the underground brine prior to the collecting step, because this prevents the introduction of precipitates into the electrodialysis device.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Zhilin is no longer relied on for teaching the indicated limitation, Applicant’s argument is considered to apply to Igari mutandis mutatis. At issue is whether or not the limitation “a collecting step … underground brine to which no oxidizing agent is added”, as recited in amended claims 1 and 3, prohibits the addition of an oxidizing agent prior to the collecting step. During prosecution, claims are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation, which is the plain language meaning of the words unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification or 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked (MPEP § 2111).
In the instant case, the limitation in question is not considered to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and therefore the limitation is given its plain language meaning. While applicant has argued that the limitation “a collecting step … underground brine to which no oxidizing agent is added” precludes the use of underground brine to which an oxidizing agent is added in a preceding step, this interpretation is not consistent with the specification and other claim limitations. Specifically, claim 1 requires the “collecting step” to be preceded by an “iodine acquisition step”. The specification provides three different methods for the “iodine acquisition step”, each of which require the addition of an oxidizing agent (paras. 79-82). Thus, the limitation “a collecting step … underground brine to which no oxidizing agent is added” cannot reasonably be interpreted as precluding the addition of an oxidizing agent to the underground brine prior to the collecting step, as this interpretation is inconsistent with the language of claim 1 (and, mutatis mutandis, the language of claims 2 and 4).
Furthermore, regarding applicant’s assertion that the addition an oxidizing agent prior to the “collecting step” provides the beneficial feature of preventing blockage of the electrodialysis device by precipitates, the limitation “a collecting step … underground brine to which no oxidizing agent is added” is not commensurate in scope with this asserted benefit. Specifically, as noted above, claims 1-2 and 4-8 each require addition of an oxidizing agent prior to the underground brine prior to the collecting step. Furthermore, each of the embodiments depicted in Figs. 1-3 (i.e., all the embodiments depicted), show brine from the “iodine acquisition step 3” is either directly or indirectly passed to the “electrodialysis device 1”. Any benefits such as the removal of insoluble materials from the brine prior to the brine entering the electrodialysis device therefore cannot be attributed solely to avoiding the processing of brine to which no oxidizing agent has been added.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues on p. 8-10 that the limitation “monovalent ion selective permeable cation exchange membrane” in claim 7 cannot reasonably be considered to include ion exchange membranes that are selective for cations, but are not selective for monovalent ions.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner agrees. However, Applicant’s argument is considered moot because the new grounds of rejection rely on art explicitly teaching monovalent ion selective permeable cation exchange membranes (M-CEMs).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795