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 filed January 27, 2026 has been entered. Examiner acknowledges the addition of new claim 26. Claims 1-22 and 26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each some of the rejections under 35 USC§ 103 previously set forth in the previous Office Action mailed August 28, 2026. Therefore, those rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of these amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC§ 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Applicant argues that independent claim 1, as amended, requires “at least two electrodes at least partially contained within the container”, and that Morita is directed to a filtration apparatus rather than an electrochemical water treatment apparatus. Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Morita to include electrodes because electrodes would not benefit Morita’s filtration function.
These arguments are not persuasive. Although Morita does not expressly disclose the claimed electrodes, Eccleston discloses an apparatus for treating liquid using an electrochemical treatment arrangement including electrodes and a conductive adsorbent material. Eccleston teaches that adsorbent materials, including carbon-based adsorbents, are commonly used in liquid treatment apparatus and are capable of regeneration by passage of electric current therethrough. Eccleston further teaches that its apparatus may be used for anodic oxidation of organic compounds, cathodic reduction of compounds, and disinfection. Accordingly, Eccleston provides reason to incorporate electrodes and electrochemical treatment functionality into a water treatment unit. Therefore, the mere fact that Morita is directed to filtration does not render the combination improper, because the rejection below does not rely on Morita alone for the electrochemical treatment failures. Rather, Morita is relied upon for the modular frame/rib, membrane, and water-treatment unit structure, while Eccleston is relied upon for the electrochemical electrodes and related treatment functionality.
Applicant’s argument that adding electrodes would not improve Morita’s filtration function is not commensurate with the rejection. The proposed modification is not made to improve filtration as such, but to provide electrochemical treatment functionality in a water treatment unit, as taught by Eccleston. A reference need not be modified only to improve its original disclosed function where prior art as a whole provides a reason to combine known features for their known purpose. Eccleston teaches the known use of electrodes and conductive adsorbent material for electrochemical treatment/regeneration in liquid treatment, and Morita teaches a modular membrane/frame water-treatment structure suitable for use in a tank containing liquid to be treated.
Applicant similarly argues with respect to independent claim 15 that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Morita and Eccleston because Morita and Eccleston are both directed to treatment of liquid/water, and the fact that the references disclose different treatment mechanisms does not preclude their combination. Eccleston is relied upon for its teaching of electrochemical treatment using electrodes and conductive adsorbent material, while Morita is relied upon for the structural aspects of the modular water treatment unit, including peripheral frame/rib structures and membranes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the electrodes and electrochemical treatment functionality of Eccleston in the water-treatment structure of Morita in order to provide the known benefits of electrochemical treatment, including oxidation, reduction, disinfection, and regeneration of adsorbent material.
Applicant further argues that new independent claim 26 is allowable because Morita does not disclose “substantially U-shaped” ribs and because converting Morita’s frame into a U-shape would require opening the top of the frame, thereby preventing Morita from operating as a filtration apparatus. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 26 does not require a perfectly U-shaped rib or an open-top rib. Rather, claim 26 recites that the ribs are “substantially U-shaped”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “substantially U-shaped” encompasses structures having opposed side portions and a lower/base portion that are generally U-shaped, even if the structure includes additional features, such as an outlet or upper connection portion. Morita’s peripheral frame includes opposed side portions and a lower portion around the membrane element and therefore is at least substantially U-shaped. Applicant’s argument improperly imports a requirement that the frame must be an idealized open U-shape, which is not required by the claim language.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 9 have been considered and are persuasive. Claim 9, as amended, recites that the unit comprises conductive adsorbent material within the treatment volume and a “first end wall and a second end wall, the first and second end walls operable to close the otherwise open ends of the container”. The prior rejection did not sufficiently identify where Morita or Eccleston teaches or renders obvious first and second end walls operable to close the otherwise open ends of the container as claimed. Therefore, the rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn.
Except as specifically noted above with respect to claim 9, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejections have been considered and are maintained as set forth below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (US-20100096317-A1) in view of Eccleston (US-20090242488-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morita discloses a modular water treatment unit for an electrochemical water treatment system comprising: two or more ribs ("peripheral frame" #13 par. [0158]) arranged to form a base and walls of a container ("opening of the peripheral frame"), each rib being elongate and having at least one curve or bend along its length (Morita Fig. 1A illustrates the ribs being long and slender: having a form notably long in comparison to its width and having a curve or bend), the two or more ribs arranged face-to-face to define a treatment volume within the at least one curve or bend (treated by membranes 11a and 11b), wherein the ribs are configured to engage with adjacent ribs (shown in Fig. 5); one or more separators (Morita membranes 11a and 11b), said one or more separators being membranes disposed between opposing faces of adjacent ribs such that the one or more separators are held in position between the ribs so as to divide the treatment volume into compartments (where membranes are disposed between adjacent ribs or "peripheral frames").
Morita does not disclose a fluid-tight seal between the chambers formed by the peripheral frames, or at least two electrodes at least partially contained within the container.
However Morita does disclose that the peripheral edges of the filtration membranes 11a and 11b are heat-sealed with the peripheral frame 13 by heating the filtration membranes 11A and 11B composed of expanded PTFE porous membranes with a melting point higher than the melting point of the polyethylene resin which constitutes the peripheral frame so that the surface of the peripheral frame (#13) is melted by heat transferred through the expanded PTFE porous membrane side and solidified by cooling. In this manner It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that arranging the frames together would form a fluid tight seal between each frame where the membranes are disposed between them. This is suggested in Morita pars. [0113-0115].
Eccleston discloses an apparatus for treating liquid which comprises at least two electrodes (Eccleston #36 and #38 Fig. 2) at least partially contained within the container (Eccleston abstract "reservoir" and #2 Fig. 1 and 2), preferably wherein the electrodes are operably connected to a power supply (Eccleston par. [0006]). Eccleston further explains that the combination of electrodes with a conductive adsorbent material that is commonly used in liquid treatment is advantageous because it will allow the regeneration of the adsorbent materials used in the treatment of water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the granular adsorbent material and the at least two electrodes of Eccleston at least partially disposed within the container of Morita and there was motivation to do so as disclosed by Eccleston, "although the invention has particular use in the anodic oxidation of organic compounds, it can also be used for the cathodic reduction of compounds. It can also be used for disinfection" (Eccleston par. [0002]) and it is addressed in Morita's disclosure that the modular treatment unit may be used for sewage treatment (Morita par. [0156]). Further, Eccleston discloses that the use of carbon-based adsorbents is widely known in the art (Eccleston par. [0003]) and they "are capable of regeneration by passage of an electric current therethrough."
Regarding claim 2, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the modular water treatment unit of claim 1, wherein: i. the ribs ("peripheral frames" #13 par. [0157]) are hollow (this can be seen in Fig. 1 where the frames are hollow to allow the placement of support plate #12); and/or ii. the ribs are substantially u-shaped.
Regarding claim 3, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the modular water treatment unit of claim 1, wherein: i. the ribs comprise plastic ("polyethylene resin-made peripheral frame" par. [0157]); and/or ii. the ribs include a recess to accommodate the one or more separators.
Regarding claim 4, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the modular water treatment unit of claim 1, wherein the ribs are configured to permit fluid communication into the treatment volume, optionally wherein fluid communication into the treatment volume is via the internal volume of the ribs. (Par. [0157] describes that the support plate which supports the membranes with a space for a treated liquid flow path where the ribs permit fluid communication in that treatment volume through the membranes.)
Regarding claim 5, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the modular water treatment unit of claim 4, wherein the ribs have through- holes permitting fluid communication into the treatment volume. (openings in the peripheral frames (#13) on either side of the space occupied by the support plate (#12) permit fluid communication into the treatment volume. Seen in Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 6, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the modular water treatment unit of claim 1, additionally comprising: i. A mesh configured to prevent solid material leaving the treatment volume of the container (membranes 11a and 11b par. [0158]); and/or ii. apparatus for the delivery of air ("blower" #5 of Fig. 5 and par. [0179]) to the treatment volume.
Regarding claim 7, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the modular water treatment unit of claim 1, wherein each separator is non-conductive. (Each separator "membranes" 11a and 11b are composed of expanded PTFE (par. [0163])).
Regarding claim 8, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the modular water treatment unit of Claim 1, wherein the electrodes are wherein the electrodes are connected to a power supply (Eccleston par. [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses an electrochemical water treatment system comprising: a tank with an inlet for supplying contaminated water (Morita "immersion tank" #3 par. [0177]); one or more modular water treatment units as defined in Claim 1 located within the tank (illustrated in Morita Fig. 5); and an electricity supply operably connectable to the electrodes (Eccleston par. [0006]).
Regarding claim 11, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the electrochemical water treatment system of claim 10, further comprising: i. conductive, adsorbent material ( Eccleston #16 Fig. 2) located in at least one of the modular water treatment units, optionally wherein the conductive, adsorbent material comprises intercalated graphitic particles (Eccleston par. 0013]); and/or ii. a treated water extractor configured to remove treated water from the or each water treatment unit.
Regarding claim 12, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the electrochemical water treatment system of claim 10 comprising: i. at least two modular treatment units arranged in parallel (Morita par. [0109] and Fig. 5); and/or ii. at least two modular treatment units arranges in series.
Regarding claim 13, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the electrochemical water treatment system of claim 11, where each modular water treatment unit has an open top and at least a portion of the top of the container is positioned lower than the top of the tank (Morita shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the electrochemical water treatment system of claim 10, further comprising an air supply configured to supply air to the or each treatment volume, optionally wherein the air supply to the or each treatment volume is via the hollow ribs, optionally wherein the air supply to the or each treatment volume is via a bubbler (Morita #5 "blower" to generate bubbles par. [0179]).
Regarding claim 15, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses a method of constructing a modular water treatment unit for an electrochemical water treatment system, the method comprising the steps of: a) arranging at least two ribs such that they form a base and walls of a container (Morita "peripheral frame" #13 par. [0158]), the container defining a treatment volume (Morita par. [0157] describes that the support plate (#12) which supports the membranes with a space for a treated liquid flow path treated by membranes 11a and 11b), wherein the ribs are configured to engage with adjacent ribs to form a fluid-tight seal therebetween (Morita suggests this may be configured this way, see rejection of claim 1 for detail); b) positioning at least one separator (Morita membrane 11a or 11b in Fig 1) that is a membrane between opposing faces of adjacent ribs such that the one or more separators are held in position between the ribs and so as to divide the treatment volume into compartments; and c) mutually affixing opposing faces of adjacent ribs and/or affixing opposing faces of adjacent ribs to the separator disposed therebetween (Morita where membranes are disposed between adjacent ribs or "peripheral frames"); and d) providing at least two electrodes at least partially within the container (Eccleston par. [0006] discloses passing current through the adsorbent material which would have been obvious for the electrodes to be at least partially within the container to do so).
Regarding claim 16, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: i. drilling holes in the ribs to permit fluid communication; and/or ii. positioning a bubbler within the container (Morita #5 "blower" to generate bubbles par. [0179] where combination of Eccleston and Moria it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to either drill holes in the ribs to permit fluid communication or position the bubbler within the container).
Regarding claim 17, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the ribs comprise a recess to accommodate the at least one separator. (Morita Fig. 2 illustrates the recess within the peripheral frame to accommodate the membranes 11a and 11b. which is formed when the membranes are heat sealed into the frame which has a lower melting point than the membranes par. [0159]).
Regarding claim 18, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the method of claim 15, wherein affixing is achieved by adhesives, solvent cementing and/or welding (Morita par. [0158]).
Regarding claim 19, Morita in view of Eccleston disclose a method of operating a water treatment unit comprising the steps of: a) feeding contaminated water to an electrochemical water treatment system of claim 10 (Morita par. [0177] a liquid to be treated ...filled an immersion tank (#3)); b) passing the contaminated water through the container to a treatment volume defined by the container (Morita par. [0177] "is permeated through the filtration membranes"); c) passing the contaminated water through the treatment volume (Morita par. [0177] "is permeated through the filtration membranes"); d) passing electric current through the at least two electrodes such that the contaminated water within the treatment volume is converted to a treated water (Eccleston claim 20); and e) removing the treated water from the treatment volume (Morita par. [0177] "introduced into the common treated liquid collecting tube through the branch tubes connected to the treated liquid outlets and then recovered as treated liquid").
Regarding claim 20, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the treatment volume houses a conductive adsorbent material (Eccleston #16 Fig. 2), optionally wherein the conductive, adsorbent material comprises intercalated graphitic particles (Eccleston par. [0013]).
Regarding claim 21, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising the step of passing air through the conductive, adsorbent material for a period at intervals (Eccleston par. [0023]).
Regarding claim 22, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the water level in the tank is maintained at a higher level than the water level in the container (Eccleston discloses that liquid is discharged by overflow through the outlet port (#58 in Fig. 3) which is seen in that figure to be higher than the water level in the regeneration chambers (#44).)
Regarding claim 26, Morita in view of Eccleston discloses a modular water treatment unit for an electrochemical water treatment system, comprising: two or more ribs ("peripheral frame" #13 par. [0158]) arranged to form a base and walls of a container (Morita "opening of the peripheral frame"), each rib being substantially U-shaped (Morita Fig. 1A illustrates the ribs (peripheral frames) including opposed side portions and a lower portion around the membrane element and therefore is at least substantially U-shaped), the two or more ribs arranged face-to-face to define a treatment volume (Morita as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above would place the faces of each peripheral frame to the face of the adjacent frame), wherein the ribs are configured to engage with adjacent ribs to form a fluid-tight seal therebetween (Morita as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above); and one or more separators (Morita membranes 11a and 11b), said one or more separators being membranes disposed between opposing faces of adjacent ribs such that the one or more separators are held in position between the ribs so as to divide the treatment volume into compartment (Morita pars. [0113-0115] describes that the peripheral edges of the filtration membranes 11a and 11b are heat-sealed with the peripheral frame 13 by heating the filtration membranes 11A and 11B composed of expanded PTFE porous membranes with a melting point higher than the melting point of the polyethylene resin which constitutes the peripheral frame so that the surface of the peripheral frame (#13) is melted by heat transferred through the expanded PTFE porous membrane side and solidified by cooling. Thus suggesting where the frames sealed to one another the separators (membranes) are disposed between the opposing faces of adjacent ribs).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if corrected to place the claim in proper form.
Applicants arguments with respect to claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 9 recites, in part, that the modular water treatment unit comprises conductive adsorbent material within the treatment volume and a first end wall and a second end wall, the first and second end walls operable to close the otherwise open ends of the container.
Morita discloses flat sheet membrane filtration elements having peripheral frames and filtration membranes, and Morita is relied upon for the modular frame/rib and membrane/separator structure. Eccleston discloses electrochemical treatment using electrodes and conductive adsorbent material and is relied upon for the electrochemical treatment and conductive adsorbent material features. However, neither Morita nor Eccleston, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a modular water treatment unit having the structure of claim 1 and further comprising both conductive adsorbent material within the treatment volume and first and second end walls operable to close the otherwise open ends of the container formed by the ribs. In particular, Morita’s peripheral frames and filtration membranes are configured so that liquid passes through the filtration membranes and exits through the treated-liquid outlet. Morita’s frame/end-cap structures are associated with sealing or supporting filtration membranes and collecting treated liquid, not with closing otherwise open ends of a rib-formed container that houses conductive adsorbent material within a treatment volume. Eccleston teaches conductive adsorbent material and electrochemical regeneration/treatment, but Eccleston does not remedy the deficiency of Morita because Eccleston does not teach or suggest modifying Morita’s rib/frame-based modular unit to include first and second end walls that close the otherwise open ends of the container formed by the ribs.
The additional references considered by the Examiner (US11046596, WO2001011112 and AU2017207985) likewise do not cure this deficiency. References directed generally to electrochemical treatment chambers, electrochemical cell stacks, frames, separators, lids, chamber walls, or end walls may show that walls or closures were known in electrochemical devices generally. However, they do not teach or suggest the specific claimed arrangement in which the modular water treatment unit of claim 1, having ribs arranged face to face to form a base and walls of a container and membranes held between adjacent ribs to divide a treatment volume into compartments, further includes conductive adsorbent material within the treatment volume and first and second end walls operable to close the otherwise open ends of that rib-formed container. The mere general knowledge that electrochemical devices can include walls, lids, or closures does not provide a sufficient reason to modify the Morita/Eccleston combination in the specific manner required by claim 9. Moreover, adding first and second end walls to close the otherwise open ends of the container in the Examiner’s modified Morita structure would not merely be the predictable use of known end walls for their ordinary purpose. In the context of Morita’s filtration elements, enclosing the relevant open ends of the modified frame/rib structure would tend to block or isolate membrane surfaces relied upon for fluid passage and would not be suggested by Morita’s pressure-driven filtration arrangement. Eccleston supplies conductive adsorbent material and electrodes, but it does not provide a teaching or rationale for closing the otherwise open ends of Morita’s modified frame/rib container while also maintaining the claimed compartment-divided treatment volume containing conductive adsorbent material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US11046596, WO2001011112 and AU2017207985.
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 WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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.
/W.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights