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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (has PRO 63/238,776, filed 08/31/2021; PRO 63/248,530, filed 09/26/2021; and PRO 63/254,507, filed 10/11/2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 84, and 85 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.
Regarding Claim 64, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first and third passages”; no “third passage” has been introduced. The Examiner will assume Applicant intended to reference “the first and second passages” with respect to “the first and second passages are fluidically coupled to a high-salinity passage at respective distal ends of the first and second
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 81-83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by TROUVE et al. (US 2017/0305765 A1).
Regarding Claim 81, TROUVE discloses a microreactor for desalinating salt water (abstract). As shown in FIG. 1A, the microreactor 1 is of elongate shape with at least one ion migration compartment C1, at least one separation compartment C2, and at least one fluid collecting compartment C3 (p0040). The at least one ion migration compartment C1 includes an inlet opening 1B and a main channel 1A; at least one first cathode electrode 11A and at least one first anode electrode 12A are located on opposite sides of the compartment C1; and upper lip openings 22, 23 allow the collection of ions (p0041-0046). The at least one separation compartment C2 includes upper lateral channels 5 and 6, lateral channels 7 and 8, and a continuation of the main channel 1A (p0046-0050).
As denoted in the annotated FIG. 1A, the claimed “first passage” is shown in the shaded region running along the main channel 1A from the proximal end to the distal end of the device and is read upon by a channel delineated by the left-side of the main channel 1A, the upper lip opening 22, upper lateral channel 6, and leading down the lateral channel 8; the claimed “main container” is shown in the shaded region running substantially linearly from the proximal end to the distal end and is read upon by an area abutting the “first passage” within the main channel 1A. At the proximal end of the “first passage” is at least one wall (on the left side), and the “first passage” and the “main container” are in complete fluid communication (i.e., a first passage, defined by one or more walls surrounding the first passage, fluidically coupled to the main container at a proximal end of the first passage) and are subsequently separated further downstream at upper lip 8 leading into upper lateral channel 6. Electrode 12B corresponds with the claimed “first electrode”. TROUVE further discloses the electrodes are insulated from the saline fluid by a layer of plastic (i.e., a first electrode configured… to be substantially electrically insulated from the liquid; p0058).
[AltContent: textbox (Upper lateral channel)][AltContent: ][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (DISTAL END)][AltContent: textbox (PROXIMAL END)][AltContent: textbox (Lateral channel)][AltContent: textbox (Lateral channel)][AltContent: textbox (Upper lip opening)][AltContent: textbox (Upper lip opening)][AltContent: textbox (Anode electrode)][AltContent: textbox (Cathode electrode)][AltContent: textbox (Main channel)][AltContent: textbox (Inlet opening)]
PNG
media_image1.png
192
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Upon application of a potential difference across the electrodes 11A and 12A and 11B and 12B (p0048), oppositely charged ions dissolved in the saline water carried by the main channel 1A migrate toward electrodes 12A and 12B (p0115) such that the ion concentration is higher in the lateral channels 6 and 8 than in the main channel 1A, e.g., anodes 12A and 12B attract positively-charged sodium ions from the main channel 1A (i.e., a first electrode configured, in response to the first electrode holding a charge of a first charge type and the main container containing a liquid comprising ions… to cause a concentration of ions of a second charge type in the first passage to be greater than an average concentration of ions of the second charge type in the main container; p0115-0116).
As further shown in FIG. 1A, the cross-sectional area of the lateral 8 next to the electrode 12B is much smaller than the cross-sectional area of the main channel 1A (considered to be part of the claimed first passage and shared with the main container; i.e., wherein a cross-sectional area of the first passage at a first position along the first passage is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first passage at the proximal end of the first passage).
Regarding Claim 82, TROUVE anticipates the system of Claim 81. TROUVE further explicitly discloses the lack of use of a membrane (i.e., the main container does not include a membrane; p0017, p0031-0032, p0036).
Regarding Claim 83, TROUVE anticipates the system of Claim 81. TROUVE further discloses electrode 12B in Stage 2 (i.e., the first electrode is positioned along the first passage closer to the first position of the first passage than to the proximal end of the first passage).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 72-80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROUVE et al. (US 2017/0305765 A1) in view of GOVIND et al. (US 2014/0299529 A1).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (THIRD REGION)][AltContent: textbox (FIRST REGION)][AltContent: textbox (SECOND REGION)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Lateral channel)][AltContent: textbox (Lateral channel)][AltContent: textbox (Upper lip opening)][AltContent: textbox (Upper lip opening)][AltContent: textbox (Anode electrode)][AltContent: textbox (Cathode electrode)][AltContent: textbox (Main channel)][AltContent: textbox (Inlet opening)][AltContent: textbox (HIGH SALINITY PASSAGE)]
PNG
media_image1.png
192
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 72, TROUVE discloses a microreactor for desalinating salt water (abstract). As shown in annotated FIG. 1A, the microreactor 1 is elongate shape with an ion migration compartment C1, a separation compartment C2, and a fluid collecting compartment C3 (p0040). The ion migration compartment C1 includes an inlet opening 1B and a main channel 1A; first cathode electrode 11A and first anode electrode 12A are located on opposite sides of the compartment C1; and upper lip openings 22, 23 allow the collection of ions (p0041-0046). The separation compartment C2 includes lateral channels 7 and 8 and a continuation of the main channel 1A (p0046-0050).
The claimed “first region” is the shown shaded area on the left side of the figure, encompassing the upper lateral channel 6 and lateral channel 8 adjacent the anode electrode 12A; the claimed “second region” is the shown shaded area in the center of the figure running from the proximal end to the distal end of the main channel 1A. The “first region” and the “second region” are initially fluidically coupled upstream closer to the proximal end and are subsequently separated further downstream in the main channel 1A. Finally, electrode 12A corresponds with the claimed “an electrode”.
Upon application of a potential difference across the electrodes 11A and 12A (p0048), oppositely charged ions dissolved in the saline water carried by the main channel 1A migrate toward electrode 12A (p0115) such that the ion concentration is higher in the lateral channels 6 and 8 than in the main channel 1A, e.g., anode 12A attract positively-charged sodium ions from the main channel 1A (i.e., an electrode configured, in response to the electrode holding a charge of a first charge type and the separable main container containing a liquid comprising ions to cause a concentration of ions of a second charge type in the first region to be greater than an average concentration of ions of the second charge type in the second region; p0115-0116).
TROUVE is deficient in disclosing the separable main container is configured to substantially fluidically separate the second region from the first region via a movable fluidic separation mechanism.
GOVIND discloses an apparatus for desalinating seawater utilizing an electrodialysis cell (abstract). As a result of the use of the apparatus, two discharge streams 1100 and 1120 are produced including the separated ions (one with monovalent ions, the other with multivalent ions); outlets 1110 for these discharge streams are further disclosed to restrict the flow of fluid therethrough through the use of valves, e.g., one-way valves (i.e., a movable fluidic separation mechanism; p0066). Advantageously, this allows for the increased concentration of desired ions by preventing the movement of water through the outlets thereby producing a desired ion concentration for further downstream processing (e.g., easier precipitation of salts; p0066-0067). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a flow restriction through the form of, e.g., a one-way valve, for the discharge line of ion-concentrated streams as taught by GOVIND for the system disclosed by TROUVE.
Regarding Claim 73, modified TROUVE makes obvious the system of Claim 72. TROUVE further explicitly discloses the lack of use of a membrane (i.e., the main container does not include a membrane;; p0017, p0031-0032, p0036).
Regarding Claim 74, modified TROUVE makes obvious the system of Claim 72. GOVIND further discloses the use of valves, e.g., one-way valves, to restrict flow (i.e., the movable fluidic separation mechanism comprises at least one door configured to substantially fluidically separate the second region from the first region; p0066).
Regarding Claim 75, modified TROUVE makes obvious the system of Claim 72. As shown in the annotated FIG. 1A, the claimed “third region” is shown as the shaded area on the right of the figure, mirroring the shaded “first region” (i.e., the separable main container further has a third region fluidically coupled to the second region, and is configured to substantially fluidically separate the second region from the third region).
Regarding Claim 76, modified TROUVE makes obvious the system of Claim 75. Upon application of a potential difference across the electrodes 11A and 12A (p0048), oppositely charged ions dissolved in the saline water carried by the main channel 1A migrate toward electrode 12A (p0115) such that the ion concentration is higher in the lateral channels 6 and 8 than in the main channel 1A, e.g., anode 12A attract positively-charged sodium ions from the main channel 1A (i.e., an electrode configured, in response to the electrode holding a charge of a first charge type and the separable main container containing a liquid comprising ions to cause a concentration of ions of a second charge type in the first region to be greater than an average concentration of ions of the second charge type in the second region; p0115-0116). Similarly, cathode 12B adjacent the area designated as the claimed “third region” attracts negatively-charged chloride ions from the main channel 1A (i.e., cause a concentration of ions of the first charge type in the third region to be greater than a concentration of ions of the first charge type in the second region).
Regarding Claim 77, modified TROUVE makes obvious the system of Claim 76. TROUVE further discloses the electrodes are insulated from the saline fluid by a layer of plastic (i.e., the electrode is configured, in response to the separable main container containing the liquid, to be substantially electrically insulated from the liquid; p0058).
Regarding Claim 78, modified TROUVE makes obvious the system of Claim 75. As shown in the annotated FIG. 1A, lateral channels 8 and 7 lead to at least one external vessel 10 collecting highly saline fluid 10A (i.e., a first passage fluidically coupled to the first region at a proximal end of the first passage and configured to remove liquid in the first region (lateral channel 8); a second passage fluidically coupled to the third region at a proximal end of the second passage and configured to remove liquid in the third region (lateral channel 7); wherein the first and second passages are fluidically coupled to a third passage/drain reservoir at respective distal ends of the first and second passages (at least one external vessel 10); p0057).
Regarding Claim 79, TROUVE anticipates the system of Claim 72. As shown in FIG. 1A, the microreactor 1 collects all highly saline fluid 10A separated from the saline fluid 2 in the at least one external vessel 10 and all non-saline fluid 9A in the at least one inner vessel 9 (i.e., wherein the separable main container comprises a fluidically closed container; p0056, p0057).
Regarding Claim 80, modified TROUVE makes obvious the system of Claim 72. As shown in FIG. 1A, the main channel 1A runs through various stages throughout the length of the device to collection vessels 9 and 10 (i.e., wherein the separable main container comprises a main passage configured for a liquid to flow through the main passage).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 64 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 65, 67, 69, 70, 84, 85, and 86 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent Claim 64 is directed toward a desalination system comprising first, second, and third regions, wherein the second region at a proximal end introduces fluid to be treated by the desalination system with the first and third regions branching off of the second region and configured to isolate large concentrations of charged ions from the fluid to be treated in first and second passages, respectively. At the distal end of the system, the first and second passages of the first and third regions, respectively, rejoin in a high-salinity passage. The claimed system further includes one or more first electrodes positioned at the high-salinity passage at the distal end in the first region and one or more second electrodes also positioned at the high-salinity passage at the distal end of the third region.
While the prior art of record TROUVE et al. (US 2017/0305765 A1) discloses a similar desalination system, i.e., with nearly the same configuration of a main channel 1A and two branching lateral channels 6 and 8 and 5 and 7 with corresponding anode and cathode electrodes designed to attract oppositely charged ions from the main channel 1A to collect in a high-salinity passage 10, TROUVE is deficient in disclosing the electrodes extend along the branching lateral channels all the way to the distal ends of the lateral channels to the collection passage 10. Instead, TROUVE discloses that the electrodes only serve to separate ions from the main channel 1A at the initial branching points where the lateral channels begin to be fluidically isolated from the main channel 1A.
Dependent Claim 86 would be considered allowable because the proximal ends of the first passage is not entirely and directly surrounded by the claimed one or more walls.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 69 and 71 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 69 and the cancellation of Claim 71 are persuasive; these rejections have been withdrawn. However, please note the added rejection of Claim 64 and dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Regarding the objection to Claim 71, Applicant’s cancellation of Claim 71 renders the objection moot; this objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of independent Claim 64 and its dependent claims, Applicant’s amendments to Claim 64 are sufficient and persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn; independent Claim 64 is noted as being object to due to an indefinite limitation but is otherwise allowable over the prior art.
Regarding the rejection of independent Claim 81 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by TROUVE et al. (US 2017/0305765 A1), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “a first cross-sectional area of the channel 8 downstream from a proximal end (where the channel 8 connects to the main passage 1A) is not smaller than a cross-sectional area of the channel 8 at the proximal end” (pg. 14, bottom).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant did not explicitly specify where the claimed first passage begins at the proximal end; by broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed first passage can be considered to extend into the TROUVE-disclosed main channel 1A all the way to the very proximal end sharing the main channel 1A with the claimed “main container”. The claimed “first passage” is indeed “defined by one or more walls surrounding the first passage” in such an interpretation. It is noted that new Claim 86 requiring that “the one or more walls entirely and directly surround the first passage at the proximal end of the first passage” would render the claimed invention to be non-obvious over the teachings of TROUVE.
Regarding the rejection of independent Claim 72 and dependent Claim 74, now both being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROUVE et al. (US 2017/0305765 A1) in view of GOVIND et al. (US 2014/0299529 A1), Applicant argues that TROUVE does not disclose or suggest the recited features of as-amended Claim 72 because TROUVE
“contemplates a passive desalination system where ions are continuously pulled from the main passage 1A into channels 7 and 8 before being recombined in a vessel 10. Trouve does not disclose or suggest any mechanism for separating the main passage 1A off from the side channels 7 and 8, and there is no reason or motivation to do so in Trouve. Any modification to Trouve to fluidically separate the channels 7 and 8 from the main passage 1A via a movable fluidic separation mechanism would clearly be self-defeating. Such a modification would block ions from moving into the channels 7 and 8 without any apparent benefit. To the contrary, it would prevent desalination-or at least reduce desalination efficiency-contrary to the intended purpose and principle of operation of Trouve” (pg. 9-10)
Applicant argues that such a proposed modification would change the principle of operation of the prior art and therefore, the teachings of the reference would not be sufficient to render the claim prima facie obvious (pg. 10, top).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is acknowledged that TROUVE discloses open channels fluidically communicating between the lateral channel and the main channel in their disclosed desalination system. However, TROUVE does not exclude the inclusion of mechanisms for separating the main passage from the lateral channels; Applicant is imparting teachings into TROUVE not explicitly disclosed by the prior art. It is noted that TROUVE even allows for “active” control valves at the lip outlets (p0139).
Applicant’s other arguments (pg. 15-17) are noted and persuasive and have been addressed in the prior art rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 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, 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777