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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1 and 3-12
Withdrawn Claims: 13-22
Cancelled Claims: 2
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 19 NOVEMBER 2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 3-5, and 12 and the cancellation of claim 2 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1 and 3-5 and the cancellation of claim 2, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1, 4, and 12, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 NOVEMBER 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that Sohn (US Patent Application No. 20100219077 A1) hereinafter Sohn in view of Johnson et al (International Patent Application No. WO 2015084603 A1) hereinafter Johnson in view of Bretschger et al (US Patent Application No. 20200002200 A1) hereinafter Bretschger in view of Legzdins (US Patent Application No. 20150321929 A1) hereinafter Legzdins does not contain all of the limitations of instant claim 1 (Arguments filed 19 NOVEMBER 2025, Pages 7-14).
Applicant argues, regarding the combination of Sohn in view of Johnson, that the conversion of a plate-like anode to a cylindrical anode in addition to the use of a gas diffusion cathode that is impervious to water would create a device that does not function and would require a significant redesign. Furthermore, Sohn teaches an anode specifically optimized for chlorine evolution (Arguments filed 19 NOVEMBER 2025, Page 10, Paragraph 2 to Page 12, Paragraph 2).
Applicant argues, regarding Bretschger, that the gas diffusion cathode is not capable of handling overpressure of oxygen and so the cathode would leak (Arguments filed 19 NOVEMBER 2025, Page 12).
Applicant argues, regarding Legzdins, that the micro sized perforations taught by Legzdins are not equivalent to the interconnected micropores of the instant application (Arguments filed 19 NOVEMBER 2025, Page 13 to Page 14, Paragraph 1).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for claim 1, the rejection for claim 1 has been rewritten due to the change in scope of the amendments and for clarity of the record. Briefly, Sohn teaches the general electrochemical device of instant claim 1, with a similar anode, cathode, and oxygen supply method to the cathode. Johnson then teaches an alternative geometrical arrangement of these pieces, including a porous anode, to improve the efficiency of the device. Bretschger and Legzdins teach materials and pore sizes that are known in the art to modify the cathode and anode for permeability and stability purposes. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below for a more detailed explanation and a clear mapping of the claim elements.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the combination of Sohn and Johnson, Johnson explicitly teaches that the arrangement of the electrodes creates a relatively high the surface area to volume ratio which significantly increases the efficiency of the reactor compared to plate-type arrangements (Paragraph 0020). As for the adjustment of flow, it is not a difficult leap to isolate the gas flow from the liquid flow when looking at both Fig. 2 from Johnson (left) and Sohn (right) below. One would simply make the cathode extend from one side of the housing to the other, as shown by Sohn, which would create a liquid path to the outlet, while maintaining an outer shell for gas.
PNG
media_image1.png
562
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
694
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Niksa et al (International Patent No. WO 2005038091 A2) hereinafter Niksa teaches that regardless of the cathode used, the electrochemistry is equivalent for the production of hydrogen peroxide and that a silver catalyst would simply need to be avoided. Sohn teaches that platinum and platinum group metals may be used and so the reaction of hydrogen peroxide would occur with the electrodes as taught by Sohn. Additionally, the evolution of chlorine oxides or peroxides pertains significantly to the materials or articles worked upon by an apparatus and as long as the prior art apparatus is capable of producing hydrogen peroxide, the prior art apparatus will be considered to read upon such a limitation.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against Bretschger, Bretschger is not used to teach the oxygen overpressure and additionally, Bretschger explicitly teaches that there will be no leaking of fluid through the cathode membrane, despite not having extra pressure on the gas side (Paragraph 0093).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against Legzdins, Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., interconnected micropores) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Legzdins teaches micro-perforated plates or sintered metals such as stainless steel mesh ply with a rating of 10 microns that is coated with titanium can be used as an anode, among many other methods of production that produce micron sized holes/pores (Paragraphs 0035-0036).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
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, 3-5, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn (US Patent Application No. 20100219077 A1) hereinafter Sohn in view of Johnson et al (International Patent Application No. WO 2015084603 A1) hereinafter Johnson in view of Bretschger et al (US Patent Application No. 20200002200 A1) hereinafter Bretschger in view of Legzdins (US Patent Application No. 20150321929 A1) hereinafter Legzdins.
Regarding Claim 1, briefly, Sohn teaches the general electrochemical device of instant claim 1, with a similar anode, cathode, and oxygen supply method to the cathode. Johnson then teaches an alternative geometrical arrangement of these pieces, including a porous anode, to improve the efficiency of the device. Bretschger and Legzdins teach materials and pore sizes that are known in the art to modify the cathode and anode for permeability and stability purposes.
Sohn teaches a ballast water electrolytic apparatus (i.e., a water-processing electrochemical reactor comprising; Abstract) comprising an anode made from a titanium mesh with Ir/Ru/Ti oxide (i.e., wherein the anode is a non-soluble anode; Paragraph 0064) with an oxygen cathode (Fig. 3, #240) comprising a hydrophobic gas diffusion layer (Fig. 3, #244) made of a fine mesh which allows oxygen to diffuse to the reaction layer (i.e., the cathode being porous to gas and being not porous to water; Fig. 3, #242; Paragraphs 0039-0041) wherein the ballast water electrolytic apparatus includes an interior portion (i.e., the intermediate chamber; Fig. 2, #214) between the anode (Fig. 2, #230) and the cathode electrode (i.e., between the anode and the cathode; Fig. #2, #240) where water flows between the two (i.e., the intermediate chamber being crossed by the water; Paragraph 0034) with a distance of 5 mm between the anode and cathode (i.e., wherein the distance between the anode and the cathode is below 8 mm; Paragraph 0064) wherein the cathode has an oxygen supply chamber (i.e., an outer shell; Fig. 2, #220) on one side into which oxygen is introduced (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; Paragraph 0034) where the hydrophobic gas diffusion layer allows oxygen to flow through the mesh under pressure (i.e., the gas chamber being able to have the gas at an overpressure that forces the gas through the porous cathode; Paragraph 0041) wherein there is a ballast water inlet pipe (i.e., a water inlet; Fig. 2, #211) and a ballast water outlet pipe (i.e., a water outlet; Fig. 2, #212) connected to the interior portion (i.e. pipe in fluid communication with the intermediate chamber) with an oxygen inlet pipe (i.e., a gas inlet; Fig. 2, #221) and oxygen outlet pipe (i.e., and a gas outlet; Fig. 2, #222) which are both provided on the oxygen supply chamber (i.e., connected to the gas chamber; Paragraph 0034).
Sohn does not teach a water-processing electrochemical reactor comprising: wherein the anode is a cylindrical inner anode, wherein the anode is a hollow cylinder with a plurality of openings in the hollow cylinder’s side walls, so that water to be processed is able to flow from the interior of the hollow cylinder to an intermediate chamber through the plurality of openings, an outer tubular cathode that surrounds the cylindrical inner anode, an outer shell surrounding the cathode, and a water inlet in fluid communication with the interior of the cylindrical inner anode.
Johnson teaches an electrochemical reactor (i.e., a water-processing electrochemical reactor comprising; Abstract) wherein the anode (Fig. 1, #20) is surrounding a central tube (i.e., wherein the anode is a cylindrical inner anode; Fig. 2, #40) with a water inlet (i.e., a water inlet in fluid communication with the interior of the cylindrical inner anode; Fig. 2, #44) and the anode is made of a pervious metal material (i.e., wherein the anode is a hollow cylinder with a plurality of openings in the hollow cylinder’s side walls) through which water can flow radially outwards (i.e., so that water to be processed is able to flow from the interior of the hollow cylinder to an intermediate chamber through the plurality of openings) towards the cathode (i.e., an outer tubular cathode that surrounds the cylindrical inner anode; Fig. 1, #24) wherein the system includes an exterior vessel having a solid body (i.e., an outer shell surrounding the cathode; Fig. 2, #39) with a vent (Fig. 2, #56) for controlling gas flow (Paragraphs 0013 and 23). Johnson further teaches that the arrangement of the electrodes creates a relatively high the surface area to volume ratio which significantly increases the efficiency of the reactor compared to plate-type arrangements (Paragraph 0020).
Johnson is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an electrochemical reactor system for treatment of water (Title). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolytic apparatus as taught by Sohn to have the arrangement as taught by Johnson because the arrangement would create a higher surface area to volume ratio which would significantly increase the efficiency of the reactor.
Sohn in view of Johnson does not teach the cathode comprising a carbon cloth.
However, Bretschger teaches that the cathode includes a carbon textile (i.e., the cathode comprising a carbon cloth) with carbon powder pressed on metal and impregnated with polymer for the purpose the cathode having air permeability and liquid resistivity and allowing air to pass while not allowing liquid to pass and maintaining conductivity (Paragraph 0093).
Bretschger is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a bioelectrochemical system for wastewater treatment (Abstract). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode made obvious by Sohn in view of Johnson with the cathode taught by Bretschger because the cathode would allow air permeability while maintaining liquid resistivity and conductivity.
Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger does not teach wherein the anode is microporous so that the water is able to flow from the interior of the hollow cylinder to the intermediate chamber through the micropores of the anode.
However, Legzdins teaches that micro-perforated plates or sintered metals such as stainless steel mesh ply with a rating of 10 microns that is coated with titanium 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 (Paragraphs 0035-0036).
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 Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger with the micro-perforated plates or sintered metal mesh anodes as taught by Legzdins because the micro-perforated plates or sintered metal mesh would provide more stability for the anode at elevated potentials.
Regarding Claim 3, Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Sohn further teaches that the anode is made of a titanium mesh with Ir/Ru/Ti oxide (i.e., wherein the anode comprises a titanium based metal or mixed-metal oxide; Paragraph 0064).
Regarding Claim 4, Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Sohn further teaches a gas diffusion layer made from a fine mesh including polytetrafluoroethylene (i.e., hydrophobizing material; Paragraph 0041).
Bretschger further teaches that the cathode includes a carbon textile (i.e., wherein said 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., is coated with carbonaceous powder mixed with hydrophobizing material).
Regarding Claim 5, Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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).
Regarding Claim 8, Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Bretschger further 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 Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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, Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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).
Regarding Claim 11, Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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).
Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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, Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Sohn further teaches that there is a constant flow of liquid past the electrodes (i.e., wherein the reactor is configured to carry out a process for treatment of the water, and wherein said treatment is a continuous treatment; Paragraph 0055).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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, Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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 Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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 Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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, Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins makes obvious the reactor of claim 1. Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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 Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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 Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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, Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins makes obvious the reactor of claim 8. Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins 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 Sohn in view of Johnson in view of Bretschger in view of Legzdins with sunlight because sunlight also contains UV light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Niksa et al (International Patent No. WO 2005038091 A2) hereinafter Niksa teaches the electrochemical evolution of hydrogen peroxide from an electrochemically stable anode with a gas diffusion interface (Abstract).
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 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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
Prosecution Insights