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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 05/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/15/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding the section titled “Brief Description of the Drawings”, descriptions for drawings need to be separated such that each figure has its own description. Figs. 3, 4, and 5 share a description, Figs. 6, 7, and 8 share a description, and Figs. 9 and 10 share a description. See MPEP 608.01(f).
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term Microtox®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “the cylinder’s” in line 3 of the claim should read “the hollow cylinder’s”.
In Claim 1, “the cylinder” in lines 3-4 of the claim should read “the hollow cylinder”.
In Claim 1, “the openings” in line 4 of the claim should read “the plurality of openings”.
In Claim 1, “the inner anode” in line 6 of the claim should read “the cylindrical inner anode” or “the anode” to keep with the same naming convention and reduce confusion.
In Claim 1, “the cylindrical anode” in line 14 of the claim should read “the cylindrical inner anode” or “the anode” to keep with the same naming convention and reduce confusion.
In Claim 2, “the cylinder” in line 2 of the claim should read “the hollow cylinder”.
In Claim 3, “the anode is of a titanium based metal or mixed-metal oxide” in lines 1-2 of the claim is imprecise language and should read “the anode is made of a titanium based metal or mixed-metal oxide” or “the anode comprises a titanium based metal or mixed-metal oxide”.
In Claim 4, “being the carbon cloth and the metallic mesh in contact with each other” in lines 3-4 of the claim is improper grammar should read “wherein the carbon cloth and the metallic mesh are in contact with each other”.
In Claim 5, “the coated carbon cloth” in line 1 of the claim should read “the carbon cloth”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-12 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 "the water to be processed" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the intermediate chamber" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 is rejected because of its dependence upon claim 4.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said treatment" in line 1 of the claim. 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.
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, 3, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (International Patent Application No. WO 2015084603 A1) hereinafter Johnson in view of Sohn (US Patent Application No. 20100219077 A1) hereinafter Sohn with evidentiary support from Bretschger et al (US Patent Application No. 20200002200 A1) hereinafter Bretschger.
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson teaches an electrochemical reactor (i.e., a water-processing electrochemical reactor comprising; Title) with a perforated inner tube into which water flows (i.e., a water inlet in fluid communication with the interior of the cylindrical anode; Fig. 2, #40) surrounded by a fibrous metal anode (i.e., a cylindrical inner anode, wherein the anode is a hollow cylinder; wherein the anode is a non-soluble anode; Fig. 1, #20) followed by a surrounding dielectric layer (i.e., an intermediate chamber between the anode and the cathode; Fig. 1, #22) and then a surrounding metal cathode layer (i.e., an outer tubular cathode that surrounds the inner anode, the cathode being porous to gas; Fig. 1, #24) wherein the water passes through the inner tube member flowing radially through the reactor body (i.e., so that the water to be processed is able to flow from the interior of the cylinder to the intermediate chamber through the openings; the intermediate chamber being crossed by the water; Abstract) with an embodiment with a gas vent (i.e., a gas outlet connected to the gas chamber; Fig. 2, #56) that has a control valve (the gas chamber being able to have the gas at an overpressure that forces the gas through the porous cathode; Fig. 2, #57) with water and air mixing in the water inlet (i.e., a gas inlet) and the reactors are suspended in air (i.e., where between the cathode and the outer shell a gas chamber is defined; the gas chamber being able to contain a gas comprising oxygen,) above a tank, or reactor body (i.e. an outer shell surrounding the cathode; Fig. 2, #39) while water flows through the reactor to the outlet (i.e., a water outlet in fluid communication with the intermediate chamber; Fig. 2, #58; Paragraphs 0013-0014). The control valve that Johnson teaches makes the reactor capable of increasing pressure when closed and the fact that air is present in the head space of the reactor and is introduced through the water inlet means that the cathode must be porous to gas.
Johnson does not teach wherein the distance between the anode and the cathode is below 8 mm.
However, Sohn teaches, in an example, that a distance between an oxygen cathode and anode was 5mm (i.e., wherein the distance between the anode and the cathode is below 8 mm; Paragraph 0068) and, as evidenced by Bretschger, changing the spacing between anodes and cathodes optimizes the internal resistance and proton flux while also changing the fluid flow dynamics of the reactor (Paragraph 0088).
Sohn is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an electrolytic water treating apparatus (Abstract) and Bretschger is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a fuel cell for electrochemical wastewater treatment (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the spacing between the anode and cathode as taught by Johnson to be the distance as taught by Sohn because the shorter distance would decrease the resistance and improve the proton flux of the electrochemical reactor as evidenced by Bretschger.
Regarding Claim 3, Johnson in view of Sohn makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Sohn further teaches that the anode is made of titanium (i.e., wherein the anode is of a titanium based metal or mixed-metal oxide; Paragraph 0064).
Regarding Claim 11, Johnson in view of Sohn makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Sohn further teaches, in an example, that a distance between an oxygen cathode and anode was 5mm (Paragraph 0068). Bretschger further teaches that the spacing between anodes and cathodes optimizes the internal resistance and proton flux while also changing the fluid flow dynamics of the reactor (Paragraph 0088).
Johnson in view of Sohn does not explicitly teach wherein the distance between the anode and the cathode is between 2 and 3 mm, but teaches that the distance between the anode and cathode is a results effective variable concerned with the efficiency of the reaction and the fluid flow characteristics of the space. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))(See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the spacing of the anode and the cathode to be within the range of the instant application if the user wanted to improve the efficiency of the reaction.
Regarding Claim 12, Johnson in view of Sohn makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein said treatment is a continuous treatment” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Sohn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Legzdins (US Patent Application No. 20150321929 A1) hereinafter Legzdins.
Regarding Claim 2, Johnson in view of Sohn makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Johnson in view of Sohn does not teach wherein the anode is microporous, so that the water is able to flow from the interior of the cylinder to the intermediate chamber through the micropores of the anode.
However, Legzdins teaches that micro-perforated plates can be used as an anode (i.e., wherein the anode is microporous, so that the water is able to flow from the interior of the cylinder to the intermediate chamber through the micropores of the anode) for the purpose of being more stable if elevated anode potentials are involved (Paragraph 0035).
Legzdins is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an electrolytic cell for the electrochemical treatment of wastewater (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical reactor made obvious by Johnson in view of Sohn with the micro-perforated plate anodes as taught by Legzdins because the micro-perforated plate would provide more stability for the anode at elevated potentials.
Claims 4-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Sohn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bretschger et al (US Patent Application No. 20200002200 A1) hereinafter Bretschger.
Regarding Claim 4, Johnson in view of Sohn makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Sohn further teaches a gas diffusion layer made from a fine mesh including polytetrafluoroethylene (i.e., preferably polytetrafluoroethylene; Paragraph 0041).
Johnson in view of Sohn do not teach wherein the cathode comprises a carbon cloth, coated with carbonaceous powder mixed with hydrophobizing material, and a metallic mesh as current collector, being the carbon cloth and the metallic mesh in contact with each other.
However, Bretschger teaches that the cathode includes a carbon textile (i.e., wherein the cathode comprises a carbon cloth) with carbon powder pressed on metal (i.e., a metallic mesh as current collector, being the carbon cloth and the metallic mesh in contact with each other) and impregnated with polymer (i.e., coated with carbonaceous powder mixed with hydrophobizing material) for the purpose of allowing air to cross but preventing liquid from passing through the cathode (Paragraph 0093).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode construction taught by Johnson with the cathode teachings made obvious by Sohn in view of Bretschger because the cathode would be a gas diffusion cathode that prevents water from crossing it.
Regarding Claim 5, Johnson in view of Sohn in view of Bretschger makes obvious the reactor of claim 4. Sohn further teaches that cathode comprises a catalyst such as platinum or silver for the purpose of accelerating the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen (i.e., wherein the coated carbon cloth is catalysed; Paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode made obvious by Johnson in view of Sohn in view of Bretschger with the catalyst taught by Sohn because the catalyst would accelerate the hydrogen and oxygen reaction.
Regarding Claim 8, Johnson in view of Sohn makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Johnson in view of Sohn does not teach further comprising a photoreactor connected downstream of the water outlet.
However, Bretschger teaches post treatment systems can include UV light for the purpose of further disinfection (i.e., further comprising a photoreactor connected downstream of the water outlet; Paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical reactor made obvious by Johnson in view of Sohn with the post treatment UV light as taught by Bretschger because the UV light would provide further disinfection to the treated water.
Regarding Claim 9, Johnson in view of Sohn in view of Bretschger makes obvious the reactor of claim 8. Bretschger further teaches post treatment systems can include UV light for the purpose of further disinfection (i.e., wherein said photoreactor is a UV photoreactor comprising a UV source; Paragraph 0062).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Sohn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ellers et al (US Patent Application No. 20190135661 A1) hereinafter Ellers.
Regarding Claim 6, Johnson in view of Sohn makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Johnson in view of Sohn does not teach wherein the outer shell is transparent.
However, Ellers teaches that the treatment chamber may be transparent for the purpose of enhancing the electrochemical treatment with UV light (i.e., wherein the outer shell is transparent; Paragraph 0071).
Ellers is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an electrochemical liquid treatment apparatus (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical reactor made obvious by Johnson in view of Sohn with the transparent treatment chamber because the transparent treatment chamber can be used with UV light to enhance the electrochemical treatment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Sohn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Casado et al (European Patent Application No. EP 0694501 A1) hereinafter Casado.
Regarding Claim 7, Johnson in view of Sohn makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Johnson in view of Sohn does not teach further including a UV source irradiating the intermediate chamber.
However, Casado teaches that the oxidation occurring at the cathode can produce more active species in the presence of UV radiation (i.e., further including a UV source irradiating the intermediate chamber; Page 3, Lines 50-58).
Casado is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an electrolytic cell that is used to oxidize the pollutants of contaminated waters (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical reactor made obvious by Johnson in view of Sohn with UV radiation at the cathode as taught by Casado because the UV radiation would produce more active species at the cathode.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Sohn in view of Bretschger as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Salah et al (US Patent Application No. 20190002317 A1) hereinafter Salah.
Regarding Claim 10, Johnson in view of Sohn in view of Bretschger makes obvious the reactor of claim 8. Johnson in view of Sohn in view of Bretschger does not teach wherein said photoreactor is a solar photoreactor.
However, Salah teaches that sunlight is a known alternative to UV light in a photocatalytic reactor (i.e., said photoreactor is a solar photoreactor; Paragraphs 0046 and 0056).
Salah is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a photocatalytic treatment of water (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical reactor made obvious by Johnson in view of Sohn in view of Bretschger with sunlight because sunlight also contains UV light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
/A.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777