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 the invention of group I, claims 1-21, in the reply filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 22-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/15/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 2 recites “downstream of dilution compartment”, but should recite “downstream of the dilution compartment” to correct the typo;
Claim 5 line 1 reads “the second portion about”, but should read “the second portion occupies about” to correct the missing verb.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the term “mixed ion exchange resin” or “mixed bed” is a term of art referring to an ion exchange resin compartment comprising both cation and anion exchange resins.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitation “substantially similar” in lines 2-3. The specification clarifies that the term “substantially similar” is intended to indicate the ion exchange media have at least one identical component, and that the relative proportion of said identical component is within 10% between the two ion exchange media (see para. bridging p. 14-15). This term is therefore not considered to be indefinite. However, it is not considered that the specification explicitly redefines the term “substantially similar”, and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “substantially similar” is not limited to the usage in the specification (see MPEP § 2173.05(a)(III) and 2111).
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 10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitations “can resist the chlorine-containing compound … over an extended period of time” in lines 2-3. It is not clear, in light of the specification, what the requisite degree of chlorine-containing compound resistance, and over what duration, would be required to read on this claim. I.e., a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, it is unclear how much degradation would be required for an ion exchange resin to be considered to read on “can resist the chlorine-containing compound”. No description of the amount of chlorine-containing compound resistance required for an ion exchange resin to be considered to read on “can resist the chlorine-containing compound” could be identified in the specification.
Furthermore, it is unclear over what duration this degradation would need to be measured i.e., what duration would be considered an “extended period of time”. While the specification indicates on p. 2 lines 1-9 reads “an extended period of time, such as days, weeks, or months”, this does not provide sufficient clarity on the duration due to the inclusion of the term “such as” (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)).
Claim 10 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitation “an ion exchange media suitable for the removal of the dissolved silica” in line 2. It is unclear, in light of the specification, what is meant by “suitable for the removal of dissolved silica”. Specifically, it may be considered that “suitable for the removal of dissolved silica” is intended to refer to anion exchange resins, as silica is anionic, but this interpretation does not appear consistent with the specification, which describes several examples of “suitable” ion exchange media for use in the instant invention on p. 16, and describes both anion and cation exchange resins.
Claim 12 is therefore considered indefinite.
Regarding claims 13-16, claims 13-16 depend from claim 12, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of claim 12. Claims 13-16 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitation "the at least one anion exchange media of the second ion exchange media" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 7, from which claim 17 depends, does not recite “at least one anion exchange media of the second ion exchange media”. It is therefore unclear whether this limitation is intended to further limit the second ion exchange media such that it comprises at least one anion exchange media, or whether claim 17 is intended to depend from a different claim.
Furthermore, claim 17 recites the limitations “the first ion exchange media having a greater resistance to the chlorine-containing compound than the second ion exchange media” (claim 1 lines 11-12) and “the at least one anion exchange media of the first ion exchange media has a greater moisture content than the at least one anion exchange media of the second anion exchange media” (claim 17 lines 1-3, emphasis added) in combination. However, the specification states “As described herein, an ion exchange media … having a greater resistance to the chlorine-containing compounds may have … a lower moisture content” (p. 11 line 22 – p. 12 line 22, emphasis added) and “As described herein, an ion exchange media … used in the second portion of the volume … may have a … higher moisture content” (p. 13 line 14 – p. 14 line 12). I.e., the combination of features recited in claim 17 appear contradictory to those described in the specification, and the meaning of this combination of features is therefore unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification.
Claim 17 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitation "the at least one cation exchange media of the second ion exchange media" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 7, from which claim 18 depends, does not recite “at least one cation exchange media of the second ion exchange media”. It is therefore unclear whether this limitation is intended to further limit the second ion exchange media such that it comprises at least one cation exchange media, or whether claim 18 is intended to depend from a different claim.
Claim 18 is therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over DiMascio ‘413 (US Pat. Pub. 2002/0011413 A1) as evidenced by Monosphere 650C (“DOWEX MONOSPHERE 650C (H)” Lenntech (2006)) and Marathon 11 (“DOWEX™ MARATHON™ 11” Lenntech (2016)).
Regarding claim 1, DiMascio ‘413 ‘413 teaches an electrochemical water treatment device (title and abstract), comprising:
a feed inlet fluidly connectable to a source of water including dissolved silica and a chlorine-containing compound (“liquid to be purified 32” para. 49 and Fig. 3b, which necessarily requires a feed inlet for said liquid); and
an electrochemical separation module fluidly connectable to the feed inlet (“EDI module 12” para. 46 and Fig. 3b), the electrochemical separation module comprising a dilution compartment (“ion-depleting compartments 10” Id.), a concentration compartment (“ion-concentrating compartments 14” Id.), an ion exchange membrane positioned between the dilution compartment and the concentration compartment (“Cation-selective membranes 24 and anion-selective membranes 26” Id.), and first and second electrodes (“an anode 20 and a cathode 22” Id.), wherein
a first portion of a volume of the dilution compartment including a first ion exchange media positioned proximate to the feed inlet (upper layer of “ion exchange resin material … 30” para. 46 and Fig. 3b, corresponding to second layer of “module A” in Table 3), and
a second portion of the volume of the dilution compartment including a second ion exchange media positioned distal to the feed inlet (lower layer of “ion exchange resin material 28” para. 46 and Fig. 3b, corresponding to third layer of “module A” in table 3), the first ion exchange media having a greater resistance to the chlorine-containing compound than the second ion exchange media (see below).
DiMascio ‘413 teaches the second layer of “Module A” in Table 3 is “substantially uniform undoped strong acid cation exchange resin beads (DOWEX™ MONOSPHERE™ 650C)” (para. 58), which has a water/moisture content of 46-51% (see Monosphere 650C, excerpted below), and the third layer of “Module A” in Table 3 is “90 percent of nonuniform Type I anion exchange resin beads (DOWEX™ 11, non-uniform grade)” (para. 58), which has a water/moisture content of 48-58% (see Marathon 11, excerpted below), a range of water/moisture content greater than that of the second layer i.e., the layer more proximate to the feed inlet.
As evidenced by the instant specification, ion exchange resins with lower water/moisture contents have greater resistance to chlorine-containing compounds (see e.g., para. bridging p. 11 and 12).
Therefore, because DiMascio ‘413 teaches the first ion exchange media has a lower range of water/moisture content relative to the second ion exchange media, it is considered that DiMascio ‘413 inherently teaches the first ion exchange media has a greater resistance to the chlorine-containing compound than the second ion exchange media (MPEP § 2112).
Alternatively, because DiMascio ‘413 teaches the first ion exchange media has a lower range of water/moisture content relative to the second ion exchange media, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the first ion exchange media of DiMascio ‘413 has a greater resistance to the chlorine-containing compound than the second ion exchange media.
PNG
media_image1.png
313
1499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Excerpt of Monosphere 650C
PNG
media_image2.png
330
1539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Excerpt of Marathon 11
Regarding claim 2, DiMascio ‘413 further teaches a product outlet fluidly connected downstream of dilution compartment of the electrochemical separation module (“a high purity product stream 34” para. 49 and Fig. 3b, which necessarily requires a product outlet for said product stream).
Regarding claim 3, DiMascio ‘413 anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above. DiMascio ‘413 further the first ion exchange media resists swelling due to absorption of the chlorine-containing compound to a greater extent relative to the second ion exchange media (see below).
DiMascio ‘413 teaches the second layer of “Module A” in Table 3 is “substantially uniform undoped strong acid cation exchange resin beads (DOWEX™ MONOSPHERE™ 650C)” (para. 58), which has a water/moisture content of 46-51% (see Monosphere 650C, excerpted above), and the third layer of “Module A” in Table 3 is “90 percent of nonuniform Type I anion exchange resin beads (DOWEX™ 11, non-uniform grade)” (para. 58), which has a water/moisture content of 48-58% (see Marathon 11, excerpted above), a range of water/moisture content greater than that of the second layer i.e., the layer more proximate to the feed inlet.
As evidenced by the instant specification, ion exchange resins with lower water/moisture contents have greater resistance to swelling due to absorption of chlorine-containing compounds (see e.g., p. 12 lines 5-15).
Therefore, because DiMascio ‘413 teaches the first ion exchange media has a lower range of water/moisture content relative to the second ion exchange media, it is considered that DiMascio ‘413 inherently teaches the first ion exchange media resists swelling due to absorption of the chlorine-containing compound to a greater extent relative to the second ion exchange media (MPEP § 2112).
Alternatively, because DiMascio ‘413 teaches the first ion exchange media has a lower range of water/moisture content relative to the second ion exchange media, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the first ion exchange media of DiMascio ‘413 resists swelling due to absorption of the chlorine-containing compound to a greater extent relative to the second ion exchange media.
Regarding claim 4, DiMascio ‘413 further teaches the first portion occupies about 25% of the volume of the dilution compartment (Table 3 shows “Module A” comprises 4 layers, and para. 32 indicates each layer has approximately the same thickness).
Regarding claim 21, DiMascio ‘413 anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
DiMascio ‘413 further teaches the electrochemical separation module comprises a plurality of dilution compartments and a plurality of concentration compartments separated by an alternating series of cation exchange membranes and anion exchange membranes (Fig. 3b shows “Cation-selective membranes 24” and “anion-selective membranes 26” alternate).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMascio ‘413 (US Pat. Pub. 2002/0011413 A1) as evidenced by Monosphere 650C (“DOWEX MONOSPHERE 650C (H)” Lenntech (2006)) and Marathon 11 (“DOWEX™ MARATHON™ 11” Lenntech (2016)).
Regarding claim 12, DiMascio ‘413 anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 103, incorporated herein by reference.
DiMascio ‘413 does not explicitly teach the second ion exchange media comprises an ion exchange media suitable for the removal of the dissolved silica in water from the source of water.
However, DiMascio ‘413 further teaches that removal of silica is an intended use of their system (“Typical applications would be the purification and softening of … water containing foulants such as …, silicates, and other multivalent ions” para. 61).
As DiMascio ‘413 teaches an electrodeionization system, DiMascio ‘413 is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of DiMascio ‘413, such that the second ion exchange media comprises an ion exchange media suitable for the removal of the dissolved silica in water from the source of water. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because DiMascio ‘413 explicitly teaches silica removal is an intended use of the system.
Regarding claim 13, DiMascio ‘413 further teaches the second ion exchange media comprises a mixture of two or more ion exchange media (Table 3 indicates the third layer of Module A comprises 90% non-uniform and 10% uniform anion exchange resins).
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US Pat. Pub. 2004/0089551 A1) in view of Ganzi (US Pat. No. 5308466).
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches an electrochemical water treatment device (abstract), comprising:
a feed inlet fluidly connectable to a source of water including dissolved silica and a chlorine-containing compound (“feed stream 50” Figs. 2-3 and para. 90, Fig. 2 shows feed stream is introduced through a feed inlet); and
an electrochemical separation module fluidly connectable to the feed inlet (“First module 60” Fig. 2 and para. 90), the electrochemical separation module comprising a dilution compartment (“ion-depletion compartment 210” Figs. 2-3 and para. 94), a concentration compartment (“ion-concentration compartment 220” Id.), an ion exchange membrane positioned between the dilution compartment and the concentration compartment (“cation membrane” and “anion membrane” Fig. 3 and para. 53, see also “anion-permeable membrane 126 and a cation-permeable membrane 124” Fig. 4 and para. 78), and first and second electrodes (“anode” and “cathode” Fig. 3 and para. 53),
a first portion of a volume of the dilution compartment including a first ion exchange media positioned proximate to the feed inlet (“cation exchange material 250” Figs. 2-3 and para. 94) and,
a second portion of the volume of the dilution compartment including a second ion exchange media positioned distal to the feed inlet (“anion exchange material 260” Id.).
Liang does not explicitly teach the first ion exchange media has a greater resistance to the chlorine-containing compound than the second ion exchange media.
However, Ganzi teaches that using a first ion exchange media having a greater resistance to chemical attack proximate to the feed inlet i.e., an ion exchange media having greater cross-linking, and a second ion exchange media having a lesser resistance to chemical attack distal to the feed inlet provides the predictable benefit of protecting the second ion exchange media having the lesser resistance to chemical attack from attack by said chemicals (col. 15 lines 48-58) in electrodeionization systems (abstract).
As Liang and Ganzi each teach electrodeionization systems comprising a plurality of ion exchange resins arranged in layers, Liang and Ganzi are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Liang such that the first ion exchange media i.e., the ion exchange media proximate to the feed inlet, has a greater cross-linking, and therefore greater resistance to the chlorine-containing compound, than the second ion exchange media, as taught by Ganzi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Ganzi teaches locating a first ion exchange media with a greater resistance to chemical degradation proximate to the feed inlet provides the predictable benefit of protecting downstream ion exchange media with lesser resistance to chemical degradation from degradation by chemicals.
Regarding claim 2, Liang further teaches a product outlet fluidly connected downstream of dilution compartment of the electrochemical separation module (“conduit 212” Figs. 2-3 and para. 94).
Regarding claim 3, modified Liang renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Modified Liang further teaches, via Ganzi, the first ion exchange media resists swelling due to absorption of the chlorine-containing compound to a greater extent relative to the second ion exchange media (Ganzi teaches the first ion exchange media has a higher cross-linking than the second ion exchange media, see col. 15 lines 48-58. As evidenced by the instant specification, higher cross-linking results in better resistance to swelling, see e.g., p. 12 lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 4, Liang further teaches the first portion occupies about 25% of the volume of the dilution compartment, a value within the claimed range (“The volumetric ratio of anion/cation resin was about 3:1” para. 94 and see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Liang further teaches the second portion occupies about 75% of the volume of the dilution compartment, a value within the claimed range (“The volumetric ratio of anion/cation resin was about 3:1” para. 94 and see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Liang further teaches the first ion exchange media comprises a mixture of two or more ion exchange media (“A cell may contain any configuration of ion exchange material, including, for example, … mixed ion exchange material,” para. 64, “mixed/cation/anion” para. 69, and “mixed/anion/cation” para. 70).
Regarding claim 7, Liang further teaches the mixture of two or more ion exchange media comprises a mixture of at least one cation exchange media and at least one anion exchange media (“A cell may contain any configuration of ion exchange material, including, for example, … mixed ion exchange material,” para. 64, “mixed/cation/anion” para. 69, and “mixed/anion/cation” para. 70).
Regarding claim 8 and 9, modified Liang does not teach one of the at least one cation exchange media and at least one anion exchange media (claim 8), specifically the at least one anion exchange media (claim 9), has a moisture content of between about 40-50%.
However, Ganzi further teaches that anion exchange resins suitable for use in the layer proximate to the feed inlet i.e., anion exchange resins having a higher cross-linking and greater chemical resistance, have a moisture content of between about 40-55%, a range encompassing the claimed range (“low crosslinked anion exchange resins are defined as having less than about 6% crosslinking” col. 5 lines 1-11 and see annotated Table col. 11 lines 5-22, below).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use at least one cation exchange media and at least one anion exchange media (claim 8), specifically at least one anion exchange media (claim 9), having a moisture content of between about 40-55%, a range encompassing the claimed range, when modifying the system of Liang in view of Ganzi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Ganzi teaches a moisture content between 40-55% is suitable for an anion exchange material having a greater resistance to chemical degradation. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07). A range in the prior art encompassing a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
PNG
media_image3.png
357
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Ganzi Table (col. 11 lines 5-22)
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 has been interpreted as “the first ion exchange media is suitable for use with the chlorine-containing compound at concentrations of about 0.01 ppm to about 0.10 ppm”.
Modified Liang renders the limitations of claim 6 obvious, as described above.
Modified Liang does not explicitly teach the first ion exchange media is suitable for use with the chlorine-containing compound at concentrations of about 0.01 ppm to about 0.10 ppm.
However, Ganzi further teaches ion exchange resins suitable for use as the first ion exchange media (“low crosslinked anion exchange resins are defined as having less than about 6% crosslinking” col. 5 lines 1-11 and see Tables on col. 11 lines 5-35) generally comprise chloride (col. 11 lines 36-47) and are conditioned using solutions comprising high concentrations of chloride (col. 11 line 65 through col. 12 line 12).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, when modifying the system of Liang based on the teachings of Ganzi, to do so such that the first ion exchange media is suitable for use with chloride at concentrations of about 0.01 ppm to about 0.10 ppm. a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in this way because Ganzi teaches resins suitable for the first ion exchange media typically comprise chloride and are intended to be conditioned using chloride.
Regarding claim 11, modified Liang renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Liang further teaches the first ion exchange media further comprises up to about 10% of an adsorbent (“In some embodiments, particularly where separate layers are disposed in a single cell, it may be preferable that one or more of the layers is doped” para. 77, “when either, or both, of the alternating layers of ion exchange resin material 128 and 130 are doped, they are doped with less than … about 10 percent, of a dopant material, by volume of the layer to be doped. … Some examples of dopant materials included strong and weak cation exchange resin, type I and type II anion exchange resin, … or an electrically conductive non-ion exchange material such as, for example, carbon or conductive polymer beads” para. 81, and see Figs. 4a,c,d,f).
Regarding claim 12, modified Liang renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Liang further teaches the second ion exchange media comprises an ion exchange media suitable for the removal of the dissolved silica in water from the source of water (“Compounds that dissociate into anionic species and those that dissociate into cationic species may both be removed with the present invention. … These include … silica …” para. 36).
Regarding claim 13, Liang further teaches the second ion exchange media comprises a mixture of two or more ion exchange media (“A cell may contain any configuration of ion exchange material, including, for example, … mixed ion exchange material,” para. 64, “anion/cation/mixed” para. 67, and “cation/anion/mixed” para. 68, and “three different types of ion exchange layers may be included in a single cell. Cation exchange layer 81 may be followed by anion exchange layer 83 which is in turn followed by mixed ion exchange layer 85.” para. 86 and Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Liang further teaches the mixture of two or more ion exchange media comprises a mixture of at least one cation exchange media and at least one anion exchange media (“mixed ion exchange layer 85” para. 86 and Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15 and 16, modified Liang does not teach one of the at least one cation exchange media and at least one anion exchange media (claim 15), specifically the at least one anion exchange media (claim 16), has a moisture content of between about 50-60%.
However, Ganzi further teaches that anion exchange resins suitable for use in the layer distal to the feed inlet i.e., anion exchange resins having a lower cross-linking and resistance to chemical degradation, have a moisture content of between about 48-80%, a range encompassing the claimed range (“low crosslinked anion exchange resins are defined as having less than about 6% crosslinking” col. 5 lines 1-11 and see annotated Table col. 11 lines 5-22, below).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, when modifying Liang in view of Ganzi, to do so such that one of the at least one cation exchange media and at least one anion exchange media (claim 15), specifically the at least one anion exchange media (claim 16), has a moisture content of between about 48-80%, a range encompassing the claimed range, as taught by Ganzi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Ganzi teaches a moisture content between 48-80% is suitable for an anion exchange material having a lesser resistance to chemical degradation when protected by an ion exchange material having a greater resistance to chemical degradation. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07). A range in the prior art encompassing a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
PNG
media_image4.png
357
650
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Ganzi Table (col. 11 lines 5-22)
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has been interpreted as “wherein the second ion exchange media comprises at least one cation exchange media, and the at least one cation exchange media of the first ion exchange media and the at least one cation exchange media of the second ion exchange media have about equal moisture content”.
Modified Liang renders the limitations of claim 7 obvious, as described above.
Liang further teaches the second ion exchange media comprises at least one cation exchange media (“mixed/cation/anion” para. 69 and “mixed/anion/cation” para. 70).
Modified Liang does not explicitly teach the at least one cation exchange media of the first ion exchange media and the at least one cation exchange media of the second ion exchange media have about equal moisture content.
However, Liang further teaches the same cation exchange media can be suitably used in both a mixed bed and a pure cation exchange bed (see e.g., paras. 90-91 and 94).
It is therefore considered that, when modifying the embodiments of Liang having a mixed bed as the first ion exchange media based on the teachings of Ganzi, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the same cation exchange resin in both the first ion exchange media and the second ion exchange media. I.e., it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify only the anion exchange resin in the first ion exchange media. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found this obvious because Liang teaches the same cation exchange media can be used in both the mixed and cation exchange beds. Use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Furthermore, when modifying the embodiments of Liang having a mixed bed as the first ion exchange media based on the teachings of Ganzi, only three possibilities exist:
a) the anion exchange resin of the first ion exchange media could be modified to have a greater resistance to chemical attack;
b) the cation exchange resin of the first ion exchange media could be modified to have a greater resistance to chemical attack; or
c) both the anion and cation exchange resins of the first ion exchange media could be modified to have a greater resistance to chemical attack.
Because only three possibilities for modifying the mixed bed of Liang are rendered obvious by Ganzi, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify only the anion exchange resin in the first ion exchange media when modifying Liang in view of Ganzi. Selecting an option from a finite number of predictable, art recognized solutions to a problem with a reasonable expectation of success establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 19, modified Liang renders the limitations of claim 7 obvious, as described above.
Modified Liang, via Ganzi, further teaches the first ion exchange media and the second ion exchange media comprise a macroporous resin or a cross-linked gel (each of the resin materials listed on the tables in col. 11 lines 5-35 are either cross-linked gels i.e., “Gel”, or macroporous resins i.e., “porous”, see also col. 15 lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 20, modified Liang renders the limitations of claim 7 obvious, as described above.
Liang further teaches a volume of the concentration compartment comprises a third ion exchange media having a composition substantially similar to the first ion exchange media (“The cation exchange material 250 used in the first module ion-depletion compartment was MARATHON™ C cation exchange resin … Ion-concentration compartment 220 was filled with cation exchange material.” para. 94 i.e., the concentration compartment was filled with a third ion exchange media identical to the first ion exchange media. See also para. 90).
Regarding claim 21, modified Liang renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Liang further teaches the electrochemical separation module comprises a plurality of dilution compartments and a plurality of concentration compartments separated by an alternating series of cation exchange membranes and anion exchange membranes (see Fig. 3, see also Fig. 4 and para. 78).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gifford (US Pat. Pub. 2008/0067069 A1) teaches an EDI system comprising discrete ion exchange resin beds layered in the diluate compartments, wherein the ion exchange resin beds comprise mixed beds (see e.g., Figs. 1 and 3, and paras. 37 and 49). Inoue (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0091014 A1) teaches an EDI system comprising discrete ion exchange resin beds layered in the diluate compartments (see e.g., Fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795