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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18, 20-25, 27-33, 35, 37-40, 42-48, 50-54, 56-62, and 64-71 are pending in the current Office action. Claims 4, 13, 19, 26, 34, 36, 41, 49, 55, and 63 were cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 23-25, 27-28, 35, 46-48, 50-51, and 65 were amended by Applicant. Claims 67-71 are new claims.
Status of the Rejection
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18, 20-25, 27-33, 35, 37-40, 42-48, 50-54, 56-62, and 64-66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1-3, 10-12, 14-18, 20-25, 32-33, 35, 37-40, 42-48, 56-62, and 64 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New rejections are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Priority
Based on Applicant’s Remarks filed 12/22/2025, see p. 14-15, claims 1, 5-12, 14-18, 20-23, 27-33, 35, 37-40, 42-46, 50-54, 56-62, and 64-66 have been accorded an effective filing date of 07/07/2021 i.e., the filing date of Application No. 17/369346, and claims 2-3, 24-25, and 47-48 have been accorded an effective filing date of 09/15/2022 i.e., the filing date of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 67 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 67 line 3 recites “a electrical”, but should recite “an electrical” to correct the typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the term “void fraction” as defined in the equation provided in para. 276 is also referred to as simply “porosity” in the prior art (when expressed as a percentage, see also para. 277).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 67-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Andelman (US Pat. Pub. 2005/0103634 A1).
Regarding claim 67, Andelman teaches an electrochemical device (abstract) comprising:
a housing (“Flow paths may be formed by creation of inlets and outlets through capacitor housings,” para. 43) with an inlet valve to control a contaminated inlet stream (“103” para. 66 and Fig. 12) and an outlet valve to control an output stream (“104” para. 66 and Fig. 12);
an electrical power supply to supply voltage to the electrochemical device (“DC power source 13” para. 63 and Fig. 10); and
a faradic porosity cell (“44” para. 66 and Fig. 12) including a plurality of electrodes disposed within the housing (“electrodes 2” Figs. 1 and 16 and paras. 29 and 46), the faradic porosity cell having an electrode stack configuration with multiple layers including a plurality of carbon-based cathodes (see Fig. 16), a plurality of carbon-based anodes (see Fig. 16), and at least one current collector (“current collector 1” para. 46 and Fig. 1, see also Fig. 16),
wherein when the voltage is applied to the faradic porosity cell with a contaminated fluid stream therein, at least one of metal ions, derivatives of metal or metal particles are removed from the contaminated fluid stream and immobilized onto one or more of the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell (“During the first charge cycle, the electrodes are of the same polarity as the fixed charge inside the membranes. Co-ions expelled from the pore volume of the electrodes are trapped against the membranes. This causes an amount of counterions in the central flow channel to migrate through the membranes, where they form a concentrated solution in the electrode layer.” para. 105) without desorbing from the one or more of the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell (“after discharge, is a reverse polarity charge. Here, the bound charge on the membranes is opposite to the electronic charge on the electrodes. Ions are driven from the electrode across to the adjacent membrane, but cannot migrate through the second membrane. Therefore, a concentrated solution forms in the central flow channel and is released through the outlet.” para. 106 i.e., at least a portion of the ions removed during the charge cycle do not desorb from the cell without application of a reverse bias voltage).
Regarding claim 68, Andelman further teaches at least one membrane on one of the plurality of carbon-based anodes or one of the plurality of carbon-based cathodes (“charge barrier 3 may be a permselective membrane of either polarity and either the same polarity as each other or an opposite polarity.” para. 46 and Fig. 1) and at least one spacer between some of the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell (“spacer 4” para. 46 and Fig. 1, see also Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 69, Andelman anticipates the limitations of claim 67, as described above.
Andelman further teaches one or more separators in the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell (“spacer 4” para. 46 and Fig. 1, see also Fig. 16) including a thickness of less than about 255 micrometers, a range within the claimed range (“It is desirable that the flow spacer 4 be thin, e.g., under 0.01 inches thick” para. 47).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 23, 25, 27-33, 35, 37-40, and 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faris (US Pat. Pub. 2004/0095706 A1) in view of Doyen (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0326067 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Faris teaches an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (abstract), the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradaic porosity cell (see below) including:
at least one first electrode (“high surface area activated carbon for one electrode” para. 31) comprising an activated carbon film (“The high surface area conductive material employed in the flow-through capacitor may comprise … activated carbon particles formed integrally with a binder material, … non-woven activated carbon fibrous sheets, non-woven activated carbon fibrous cloths” para. 34) having a surface area greater than about 1000 square meters per gram (“Activated carbon material of greater than about 1000 square meters per gram surface area are preferred” Id.), a range overlapping the claimed range; and
at least one second electrode comprising a carbon felt or woven carbon cloth (“both the negative and positive electrodes 220, 210 are formed of the same materials.” para. 31 and “woven activated carbon fibrous cloths, non-woven activated carbon fibrous sheets, non-woven activated carbon fibrous cloths” para. 34) having a surface area greater than about 1000 square meters per gram (“Activated carbon material of greater than about 1000 square meters per gram surface area are preferred” para. 34), a range overlapping the claimed range;
a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode (“a current collector and a high surface area conductive constituent may be in the form of layers” para. 33); and
a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode (Id.),
wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (see below).
The limitations “a faradic porosity cell” and “wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage”, as currently drafted, are functional recitations i.e., they defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, the system of Faris comprises two carbon electrodes, wherein the first electrode is a porous carbon film configured to adsorb species. The instant specification indicates that a system comprising two carbon electrodes, wherein the first electrode is a porous carbon film, is capable of removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution using faradic immobilization (see e.g., para. 168). It is therefore considered that the system of Faris (and modified Faris) is capable of at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution using faradic immobilization i.e., such that “a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage”.
Faris (and modified Faris) therefore read on the limitations “a faradic porosity cell” and “wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage”.
Faris does not explicitly teach the first electrode comprising an activated carbon film has a void fraction of about 30 percent to about 65 percent and the second electrode comprising a carbon felt or woven carbon cloth has a void fraction of about 70 to about 99.9, but is rather silent as to the void fractions of the electrodes.
However, Doyen teaches porous carbon electrodes (abstract) for use in capacitive deionization systems (e.g., para. 3), the electrodes comprising an carbon materials (“90 wt.% of YP50F carbon powder and 10 wt.% of PAN X100 polymer” para. 73 and “YP50F activated carbon powder” para. 77) having a void fraction between about 50 and about 75 percent (“A typical property for such layers obtained by this phase-inversion process by water coagulation is that they are substantially porous (50-75 volume percent)” para. 81), a range overlapping the claimed ranges.
As Faris and Doyen each teach systems for removing ions from a solution via electrosorption onto a porous carbon layer, Faris and Doyen 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 use a carbon layer and carbon felt or woven carbon cloth having a void fraction of about 50 to about 75 percent, a range overlapping the claimed ranges, as the carbon layer and carbon felt or woven carbon cloth comprising the first and second electrodes, respectively, in Faris. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Faris is silent as to the void fractions of the electrode materials, and Doyen teaches this range is suitable for the void fraction of carbonaceous materials used as electrodes in an electrochemical deionization system. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., a carbon layer or carbonaceous material having a void fraction between 50 and 75 percent as an electrode material in an electrochemical deionization system) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07). A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 25, Faris further teaches a membrane disposed on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode, wherein the membrane is in a form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof (“ion exchange membrane may be polymerized in situ on one or more surface of an electrode” para. 36).
Regarding claim 27, modified Faris renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
Modified Faris does not teach the current collector comprises graphite, titanium, stainless steel, aluminum, copper, nickel, or a combination thereof. Faris is silent as to the material of the current collector.
However, Doyen further teaches a current collector comprising graphite for supplying current to the electrode (“A sheet of a graphite non-woven material (graphite felt) was used as a support for the layer of active material of the electrode, and as current collector.” Para. 101), which provides good conductivity (“The material of which the graphite felt was made was selected such that it showed … a good electron conductivity” Id.).
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 graphite as the material of the current collector in Faris. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use graphite because Doyen teaches graphite provides good conductivity when used as a current collector. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 28, modified Faris teaches the limitations of claim 23, as described above. Faris further teaches the current collector is in a form of a layer (“a current collector … may be in the form of layers,” para. 33).
Regarding claim 29, modified Faris teaches the limitations of claim 23, as described above. Faris further teaches the electrochemical device comprises a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode (“A separator may optionally be provided between the electrodes, as is known in the art.” Para. 36).
Regarding claim 30, Faris further teaches the separator comprises a dielectric material (“The separator may function to prevent undesired electrical contact between opposite electrodes,” para. 37 i.e., the separator comprises an insulating (dielectric) material).
Regarding claim 31, Faris further teaches the dielectric material comprises a cellulosic material (“Materials for the separator include, … cellulose (e.g., nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and the like)” para. 38).
Regarding claim 32, modified Faris teaches the limitations of claim 23, as described above.
Modified Faris further teaches, via Doyen, the activated carbon film of the at least one first electrode is microporous (“the micropores of the electrode” para. 70).
Regarding claim 33, modified Faris teaches the limitations of claim 23, as described above.
Faris further teaches the activated carbon film of the at least one first electrode comprises a binder (“activated carbon particles formed integrally with a binder material” para. 34).
Regarding claim 35, modified Faris teaches the limitations of claim 23, as described above.
Faris further teaches the carbon felt is a nonwoven carbon felt (“The high surface area conductive material employed in the flow-through capacitor may comprise … nonwoven activated carbon fibrous sheets, non-woven activated carbon fibrous cloths; …” para. 34).
Regarding claim 37, modified Faris renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one first electrode is a cathode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Faris teaches the first electrode may receive either a positive or a negative applied potential i.e., the first electrode may serve as either an anode or cathode (paras. 24 and 32).
Faris therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one first electrode is a cathode”.
Regarding claim 38, modified Faris renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one first electrode is an anode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Faris teaches the first electrode may receive either a positive or a negative applied potential i.e., the first electrode may serve as either an anode or cathode (paras. 24 and 32).
Faris therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one first electrode is an anode”.
Regarding claim 39, modified Faris renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one second electrode is a cathode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Faris teaches the second electrode may receive either a positive or a negative applied potential i.e., the second electrode may serve as either an anode or cathode (paras. 24 and 32).
Faris therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one second electrode is a cathode”.
Regarding claim 40, modified Faris renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one second electrode is an anode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Faris teaches the second electrode may receive either a positive or a negative applied potential i.e., the second electrode may serve as either an anode or cathode (paras. 24 and 32).
Faris therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one second electrode is an anode”.
Regarding claim 42, modified Faris renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
Modified Faris does not explicitly teach the electrochemical device is a stacked device comprising a plurality of the at least one first electrode and a plurality of the at least one second electrode.
However, Doyen further teaches a plurality of first electrodes and second electrodes may be formed into a stacked device (para. 66).
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 Faris such that the electrochemical device is a stacked device comprising a plurality of the at least one first electrode and a plurality of the at least one second electrode. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of increasing the adsorption capacity of the system. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 43, modified Faris renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
Faris further teaches the target ionic species is chlorine (“the positive electrode 210 attracts negative chlorine ions” para. 29).
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “wherein the chromium is Cr (VI) and is reduced to Cr (III)”, as currently drafted, further limits claim 43 only when the target species is chromium. I.e., claim 44 is an optional limitation (MPEP § 2111.04).
In the instant case, the system of modified Faris reads on the limitation of claim 43 when the target species is chlorine, rather than chromium, and therefore the system of modified Faris is not further limited by the limitation wherein the chromium is Cr (VI) and is reduced to Cr (III)” as currently drafted.
Regarding claim 45, modified Faris renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
Faris further teaches the aqueous solution flows through the at least one second electrode (“flow through capacitors” abstract and see title).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faris in view of Doyen, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Barcelos et al. (“Efficient and stable operation of capacitive deionization assessed by electrode and membrane asymmetry” Electrochimica Acta 388 (2021) 138631).
Regarding claim 24, modified Faris renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above. Faris further teaches an ion exchange membrane (“ion exchange membrane” para. 36).
Modified Faris does not explicitly teach the ion exchange membrane is an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane.
However, Barcelos teaches a method for enhancing systems for removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution using capacitive deionization (abstract), wherein the system includes ion exchange membranes disposed on the electrodes (see p. 7 col. 2 para. starting “The cells …” and § 4), the ion exchange membranes comprising cation and anion exchange membranes (“cationic membrane (CMI-7000S) … anionic membrane (AMI-7001S)” p. 2 para. bridging cols. 1-2), which provides enhanced salt adsorption capacity (SAC) (§ 4).
As Barcelos teaches a method for enhancing systems that remove or reduce target ionic species from an aqueous solution via electrosorption, Barcelos 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 use an anion or cation exchange membrane, as taught by Barcelos, as the ion exchange membrane in the system of Faris. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of enhancing the specific adsorption capacity of the electrode, as taught by Barcelos. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andelman (US Pat. Pub. 2005/0103634 A1) in view of Doyen (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0326067 A1).
Regarding claim 70, Andelman anticipates the limitations of claim 67, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Andelman does not teach the plurality of carbon-based anodes include a void fraction of at least 30% and the plurality of carbon-based cathodes include a void fraction of at least 65%.
However, Doyen teaches porous carbon electrodes (abstract) having a void fraction between about 50 and about 75 percent (“A typical property for such layers obtained by this phase-inversion process by water coagulation is that they are substantially porous (50-75 volume percent)” para. 81), a range overlapping the claimed ranges, are suitable for electrochemical deionization (abstract).
As Andelman and Doyen each teach systems for the electrochemical purification of water via electrosorption, Andelman and Doyen 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 Andelman, such that the carbon-based anodes and carbon-based cathodes include a void fraction of about 50 to about 75 percent, a range overlapping the claimed ranges, as taught by Doyen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Andelman is silent as to the void fractions of the electrode materials, and Doyen teaches this range is suitable for the void fraction of a carbonaceous materials used as electrodes in an electrochemical deionization system. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., a carbon layer or carbonaceous material having a void fraction between 50 and 75 percent as an electrode material in an electrochemical water purification system) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07). A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andelman (US Pat. Pub. 2005/0103634 A1) in view of Faris (US Pat. Pub. 2004/0095706 A1).
Regarding claim 71, Andelman anticipates the limitations of claim 67, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Andelman does not teach the plurality of electrodes includes at least one first electrode comprising a carbon felt or woven carbon cloth.
However, Faris teaches an electrochemical device for removing ions from a feed stream by electroadsorption (abstract), wherein the electrodes comprise a carbon felt or woven carbon cloth (“The high surface area conductive material employed in the flow-through capacitor may comprise … woven activated carbon fibrous sheets, woven activated carbon fibrous cloths, non-woven activated carbon fibrous sheets, non-woven activated carbon fibrous cloths” para. 34).
As Andelman and Faris each teach systems for the electrochemical purification of water via electrosorption, Andelman and Faris 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 Andelman, such that the carbon-based electrodes include at least one first electrode comprising a carbon felt or woven carbon cloth, as taught by Faris. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Faris teaches these materials are suitable for carbon electrodes used for electrosorption of ions from water. Use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference patent or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 14-17, 21-25, 27-30, 35, 37-40, 43-44, 46-48, 50-53, 58-61, and 65-66 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 19, or 31 of U.S. Patent No. 12421616 (the reference patent) in view of Barcelos et al. (“Efficient and stable operation of capacitive deionization assessed by electrode and membrane asymmetry” Electrochimica Acta 388 (2021) 138631 and SI).
Regarding claim 1, claim 5 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 1 lines 1-3) the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 1 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode including an activated carbon film having a void fraction of about 30 percent to about 65 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 1400 square meters per gram (claim 1 lines 5-8);
at least one second electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 5 lines 1-3) having a void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram (claim 1 lines 9-12),
wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 1 line 3).
Claim 5 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Barcelos teaches a method for enhancing systems that remove or reduce target ionic species from an aqueous solution via electrosorption (abstract), wherein the electrodes comprise porous carbon materials supported by current collectors (“a pair of carbon electrodes (2.0 cm ×2.3 cm), and graphite current collectors, as shown in Fig. S1.” § 2.4. para. 1).
As Barcelos teaches a method for enhancing systems that remove or reduce target ionic species from an aqueous solution via electrosorption, Barcelos 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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Barcelos teaches current collectors are suitable for electrically connecting porous carbon electrodes to a source of current. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 1 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 2, claim 5 of the reference patent does not recite an ion exchange membrane, wherein the ion exchange membrane is an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane.
However, Barcelos teaches that application of membranes having opposite charges on the first and second electrodes of an electrochemical cell configured to remove ions from an aqueous solution (see abstract and § 4), wherein the ion exchange membrane is an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane (“cationic membrane (CMI-7000S) … anionic membrane (AMI-7001S)” p. 2 para. bridging cols. 1-2), provides the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity (SAC) of the electrodes (see abstract and § 4).
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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent by adding a membrane on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode, wherein the ion exchange membrane is an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity as taught by Barcelos. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 2 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 3, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified claim 5 of the reference patent does not recite a membrane disposed on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode, wherein the membrane is in a form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof.
However, Barcelos teaches that application of membranes having opposite charges on the first and second electrodes of an electrochemical cell configured to remove ions from an aqueous solution (see abstract and § 4), wherein the ion exchange membrane is the membrane is in a form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof (“The ion-exchange membranes were purchased from Membranes International Inc. and … the thickness (δ), … are 0.45 mm” p. 2 para. bridging cols. 1-2), provides the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity (SAC) of the electrodes (see abstract and § 4).
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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent by adding a membrane on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode, wherein the membrane is in a form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity as taught by Barcelos. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 3 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 5, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 5 of the reference patent further recites, via Barcelos, the current collector comprises graphite (“graphite current collectors” § 2.4. para. 1).
The limitations of claim 5 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 6, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 5 of the reference patent further recites, via Barcelos, the current collector is in a form of a film, a layer, a metal sheet, a foil sheet, a mesh sheet, or a combination thereof (“graphite current collectors” § 2.4. para. 1 and see Fig. S1).
The limitations of claim 6 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 7, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 5 of the reference patent does not teach a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode.
However, Barcelos further teaches a separator arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode, which provides the predictable benefit of providing a flow path between the electrodes and preventing short-circuiting (“The plastic mesh placed between the carbon electrodes provided the gap needed for the electrolyte flow and also to avoid short-circuit” § 2.4. para. 1).
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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent, by adding a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of providing a flow path between the electrodes and preventing short-circuiting, as taught by Barcelos. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 7 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 8, modified claim 5 of the reference patent further teaches, via Barcelos, the separator comprises a dielectric material (“The plastic mesh placed between the carbon electrodes provided the gap needed for the electrolyte flow and also to avoid short-circuit” § 2.4. para. 1).
The limitations of claim 8 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 14, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one first electrode is a cathode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 5 of the reference patent recites the first electrode comprises an activated carbon film (claim 1 line 5), and the instant specification indicates that an activated carbon film may suitably serve as a cathode.
Claim 5 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one first electrode is a cathode”.
The limitations of claim 14 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 15, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one first electrode is an anode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 5 of the reference patent recites the first electrode comprises an activated carbon film (claim 1 line 5), and the instant specification indicates that an activated carbon film may suitably serve as an anode.
Claim 5 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one first electrode is an anode”.
The limitations of claim 15 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 16, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one second electrode is a cathode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 5 of the reference patent recites the second electrode comprises a carbon felt (claim 5), and the instant specification indicates that a carbon felt may suitably serve as a cathode.
Claim 5 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one second electrode is a cathode”.
The limitations of claim 16 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 17, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one second electrode is an anode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 5 of the reference patent recites the second electrode comprises a carbon felt (claim 5), and the instant specification indicates that a carbon felt may suitably serve as an anode.
Claim 5 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one second electrode is an anode”.
The limitations of claim 17 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 21, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Claim 5 of the reference patent does not recite the target ionic species is silver, copper, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, zinc, chlorine, chloramine, or any combination thereof.
However, Barcelos further teaches the target species is chlorine (“(1080 mg L-1 NaCl)” p. 4 col. 1 para. 1).
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 invention of reference claim 5, such that the target species is chlorine, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Barcelos teaches chlorine can suitably be removed from an aqueous solution using an electrochemical deionization cell. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 21 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “wherein the chromium is Cr (VI) and is reduced to Cr (III)”, as currently drafted, further limits claim 21 only when the target species is chromium. I.e., claim 22 is currently drafted as an optional limitation (MPEP § 2111.04).
In the instant case, the modified claim 5 of the reference patent reads on the limitation of claim 21 when the target species is chlorine, rather than chromium, and therefore modified claim 5 of the reference patent is not further limited by the limitation wherein the chromium is Cr (VI) and is reduced to Cr (III)” as currently drafted.
The limitations of claim 22 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 23, claim 19 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 15 lines 1-3), the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradaic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 15 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode comprising an activated carbon film having a void fraction of about 30 percent to about 65 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 1400 square meters per gram (claim 15 lines 5-8); and
at least one second electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 19) having a void fraction of about 70 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 15 lines 9-12),
wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 15 line 3).
Claim 19 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Barcelos teaches a method for enhancing systems that remove or reduce target ionic species from an aqueous solution via electrosorption (abstract), wherein the electrodes comprise porous carbon materials supported by current collectors (“a pair of carbon electrodes (2.0 cm ×2.3 cm), and graphite current collectors, as shown in Fig. S1.” § 2.4. para. 1).
As Barcelos teaches a method for enhancing systems that remove or reduce target ionic species from an aqueous solution via electrosorption, Barcelos 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 invention of claim 19of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Barcelos teaches current collectors are suitable for electrically connecting porous carbon electrodes to a source of current. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 23 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 24, claim 19 of the reference patent does not recite an ion exchange membrane, wherein the ion exchange membrane is an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane.
However, Barcelos teaches that application of membranes having opposite charges on the first and second electrodes of an electrochemical cell configured to remove ions from an aqueous solution (see abstract and § 4), wherein the ion exchange membrane is an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane (“cationic membrane (CMI-7000S) … anionic membrane (AMI-7001S)” p. 2 para. bridging cols. 1-2), provides the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity (SAC) of the electrodes (see abstract and § 4).
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 invention of claim 19 of the reference patent by adding a membrane on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode, wherein the ion exchange membrane is an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity as taught by Barcelos. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 24 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 25, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 23, as described above.
Modified claim 19 of the reference patent does not recite a membrane disposed on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode, wherein the membrane is in a form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof.
However, Barcelos teaches that application of membranes having opposite charges on the first and second electrodes of an electrochemical cell configured to remove ions from an aqueous solution (see abstract and § 4), wherein the ion exchange membrane is the membrane is in a form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof (“The ion-exchange membranes were purchased from Membranes International Inc. and … the thickness (δ), … are 0.45 mm” p. 2 para. bridging cols. 1-2), provides the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity (SAC) of the electrodes (see abstract and § 4).
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 invention of claim 19 of the reference patent by adding a membrane on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode, wherein the membrane is in a form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity as taught by Barcelos. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 25 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 27, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 19 of the reference patent further recites, via Barcelos, the current collector comprises graphite (“graphite current collectors” § 2.4. para. 1).
The limitations of claim 27 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 28, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 19 of the reference patent further recites, via Barcelos, the current collector is in a form of a film, a layer, a metal sheet, a foil sheet, a mesh sheet, or a combination thereof (“graphite current collectors” § 2.4. para. 1 and see Fig. S1).
The limitations of claim 28 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 29, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 19 of the reference patent does not teach a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode.
However, Barcelos further teaches a separator arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode, which provides the predictable benefit of providing a flow path between the electrodes and preventing short-circuiting (“The plastic mesh placed between the carbon electrodes provided the gap needed for the electrolyte flow and also to avoid short-circuit” § 2.4. para. 1).
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 invention of claim 19 of the reference patent, by adding a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of providing a flow path between the electrodes and preventing short-circuiting, as taught by Barcelos. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 29 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 30, modified claim 19 of the reference patent further teaches, via Barcelos, the separator comprises a dielectric material (“The plastic mesh placed between the carbon electrodes provided the gap needed for the electrolyte flow and also to avoid short-circuit” § 2.4. para. 1).
The limitations of claim 30 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 35, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above. Claim 19 of the reference patent further recites the at least one second electrode comprising the carbonaceous material is a nonwoven carbon felt (claim 19 lines 1-3).
The limitations of claim 35 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 37, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 23, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one first electrode is a cathode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 19 of the reference patent recites the first electrode comprises an activated carbon film (claim 15 lines 5-6), and the instant specification indicates that an activated carbon film may suitably serve as a cathode.
Claim 19 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one first electrode is a cathode”.
The limitations of claim 37 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 38, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 23, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one first electrode is an anode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 19 of the reference patent recites the first electrode comprises an activated carbon film (claim 15 lines 5-6), and the instant specification indicates that an activated carbon film may suitably serve as an anode.
Claim 19 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one first electrode is an anode”.
The limitations of claim 38 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 39, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 23, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one second electrode is a cathode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 19 of the reference patent recites the second electrode comprises a carbon felt (claim 19), and the instant specification indicates that a carbon felt may suitably serve as a cathode.
Claim 19 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one second electrode is a cathode”.
The limitations of claim 39 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 40, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 23, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one second electrode is an anode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 19 recites the second electrode comprises a carbon felt (claim 19), and the instant specification indicates that a carbon felt may suitably serve as an anode.
Claim 19 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one second electrode is an anode”.
The limitations of claim 40 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 43, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 23, as described above.
Claim 19 of the reference patent does not recite the target ionic species is silver, copper, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, zinc, chlorine, chloramine, or any combination thereof.
However, Barcelos further teaches the target species is chlorine (“(1080 mg L-1 NaCl)” p. 4 col. 1 para. 1).
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 invention of reference claim 19, such that the target species is chlorine, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Barcelos teaches chlorine can suitably be removed from an aqueous solution using an electrochemical deionization cell. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 43 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “wherein the chromium is Cr (VI) and is reduced to Cr (III)”, as currently drafted, further limits claim 43 only when the target species is chromium. I.e., claim 44 is currently drafted as an optional limitation (MPEP § 2111.04).
In the instant case, the modified claim 19 of the reference patent reads on the limitation of claim 43 when the target species is chlorine, rather than chromium, and therefore modified claim 19 of the reference patent is not further limited by the limitation wherein the chromium is Cr (VI) and is reduced to Cr (III)” as currently drafted.
The limitations of claim 44 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 46, claim 31 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 30 lines 1-3) the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 30 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 31) having a void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram (claim 30 lines 5-8); and
at least one second electrode comprising a carbonaceous material having a void fraction of about 65 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 700 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 30 lines 9-12), wherein,
a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 30 line 3).
Claim 31 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Barcelos teaches a method for enhancing systems that remove or reduce target ionic species from an aqueous solution via electrosorption (abstract), wherein the electrodes comprise porous carbon materials supported by current collectors (“a pair of carbon electrodes (2.0 cm ×2.3 cm), and graphite current collectors, as shown in Fig. S1.” § 2.4. para. 1).
As Barcelos teaches a method for enhancing systems that remove or reduce target ionic species from an aqueous solution via electrosorption, Barcelos 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 invention of claim 31 of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Barcelos teaches current collectors are suitable for electrically connecting porous carbon electrodes to a source of current. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 46 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 47, claim 31 of the reference patent does not recite an ion exchange membrane, wherein the ion exchange membrane is an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane.
However, Barcelos teaches that application of membranes having opposite charges on the first and second electrodes of an electrochemical cell configured to remove ions from an aqueous solution (see abstract and § 4), wherein the ion exchange membrane is an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane (“cationic membrane (CMI-7000S) … anionic membrane (AMI-7001S)” p. 2 para. bridging cols. 1-2), provides the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity (SAC) of the electrodes (see abstract and § 4).
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 invention of claim 31 of the reference patent by adding a membrane on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode, wherein the ion exchange membrane is an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity as taught by Barcelos. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 47 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 48, modified claim 31 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 46, as described above.
Modified claim 31 of the reference patent does not recite a membrane disposed on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode, wherein the membrane is in a form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof.
However, Barcelos teaches that application of membranes having opposite charges on the first and second electrodes of an electrochemical cell configured to remove ions from an aqueous solution (see abstract and § 4), wherein the ion exchange membrane is the membrane is in a form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof (“The ion-exchange membranes were purchased from Membranes International Inc. and … the thickness (δ), … are 0.45 mm” p. 2 para. bridging cols. 1-2), provides the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity (SAC) of the electrodes (see abstract and § 4).
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 invention of claim 31 of the reference patent by adding a membrane on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode, wherein the membrane is in a form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the salt adsorption capacity as taught by Barcelos. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 48 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 50, modified claim 31 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 46 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 31 of the reference patent further recites, via Barcelos, the current collector comprises graphite (“graphite current collectors” § 2.4. para. 1).
The limitations of claim 50 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 51, modified claim 31 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 46 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 31 of the reference patent further recites, via Barcelos, the current collector is in a form of a film, a layer, a metal sheet, a foil sheet, a mesh sheet, or a combination thereof (“graphite current collectors” § 2.4. para. 1 and see Fig. S1).
The limitations of claim 51 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 52, modified claim 31 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 46 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 31 of the reference patent does not teach a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode.
However, Barcelos further teaches a separator arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode, which provides the predictable benefit of providing a flow path between the electrodes and preventing short-circuiting (“The plastic mesh placed between the carbon electrodes provided the gap needed for the electrolyte flow and also to avoid short-circuit” § 2.4. para. 1).
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 invention of claim 31 of the reference patent, by adding a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of providing a flow path between the electrodes and preventing short-circuiting, as taught by Barcelos. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 52 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 53, modified claim 31 of the reference patent further teaches, via Barcelos, the separator comprises a dielectric material (“The plastic mesh placed between the carbon electrodes provided the gap needed for the electrolyte flow and also to avoid short-circuit” § 2.4. para. 1).
The limitations of claim 53 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 58, modified claim 31 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 46, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one first electrode is a cathode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 31 of the reference patent recites the first electrode comprises a carbon felt (claim 15 lines 5-6), and the instant specification indicates that a carbon felt may suitably serve as a cathode.
Claim 31 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one first electrode is a cathode”.
The limitations of claim 58 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 59, modified claim 31 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 46, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one first electrode is an anode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 31 of the reference patent recites the first electrode comprises a carbon felt (claim 15 lines 5-6), and the instant specification indicates that a carbon felt may suitably serve as an anode.
Claim 31 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one first electrode is an anode”.
The limitations of claim 59 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 60, modified claim 31 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 46, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one second electrode is a cathode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 31 of the reference patent recites the second electrode comprises a carbon-based material (claim 30 lines 9-10), and the instant specification indicates that carbon-based materials may suitably serve as a cathode.
Claim 31 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one second electrode is a cathode”.
The limitations of claim 60 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 61, modified claim 31 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 46, as described above.
The limitation “the at least one second electrode is an anode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, claim 31 of the reference patent recites the second electrode comprises a carbon-based material (claim 30 lines 9-10), and the instant specification indicates that carbon-based materials may suitably serve as an anode.
Claim 31 of the reference patent therefore reads on the limitation “the at least one second electrode is an anode”.
The limitations of claim 61 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 65, modified claim 31 of the reference patent renders obvious the limitations of claim 46, as described above.
Claim 31 of the reference patent does not recite the target ionic species is silver, copper, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, zinc, chlorine, chloramine, or any combination thereof.
However, Barcelos further teaches the target species is chlorine (“(1080 mg L-1 NaCl)” p. 4 col. 1 para. 1).
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 invention of reference claim 31, such that the target species is chlorine, as taught by Barcelos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Barcelos teaches chlorine can suitably be removed from an aqueous solution using an electrochemical deionization cell. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 65 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 66, the limitation “wherein the chromium is Cr (VI) and is reduced to Cr (III)”, as currently drafted, further limits claim 65 only when the target species is chromium. I.e., claim 66 is currently drafted as an optional limitation (MPEP § 2111.04).
In the instant case, the modified claim 31 of the reference patent reads on the limitation of claim 65 when the target species is chlorine, rather than chromium, and therefore modified claim 31 of the reference patent is not further limited by the limitation wherein the chromium is Cr (VI) and is reduced to Cr (III)” as currently drafted.
The limitations of claim 66 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Barcelos. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Claims 1, 7-9, 23, 29-31, 46, and 52-54 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 19, or 31 of U.S. Patent No. 12421616 (the reference patent) in view of Faris (US Pat. Pub. 2004/0095706 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 5 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 1 lines 1-3) the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 1 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode including an activated carbon film having a void fraction of about 30 percent to about 65 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 1400 square meters per gram (claim 1 lines 5-8);
at least one second electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 5 lines 1-3) having a void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram (claim 1 lines 9-12),
wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 1 line 3).
Claim 5 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Faris teaches a current collector is suitable for supplying power to the electrodes of an electrochemical deionization cell (para. 33).
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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Faris. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Faris teaches current collectors are suitable for supplying current to electrodes. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 1 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 7, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 5 of the reference patent does not teach a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode.
However, Faris further teaches a separator arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode (“A separator may optionally be provided between the electrodes, as is known in the art.” para. 36), which provides the predictable benefits of preventing short-circuiting and strengthening the electrodes (“The separator may function to prevent undesired electrical contact between opposite electrodes, and optionally to provide structure integrity at the electrode surface.” para. 37).
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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent, by adding a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode, as taught by Faris. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of preventing short-circuiting and strengthening the electrodes, as taught by Faris. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 7 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 8, modified claim 5 of the reference patent further teaches, via Faris, the separator comprises a dielectric material (“The separator may be any commercially available separator capable of electrically isolating the electrodes” para. 38).
The limitations of claim 8 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 9, modified claim 5 of the reference patent further teaches, via Faris, the separator comprises a cellulosic material (“Materials for the separator include, but are not limited to … cellulose (e.g., nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and the like)” para. 38).
The limitations of claim 9 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 23, claim 19 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 15 lines 1-3), the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradaic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 15 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode comprising an activated carbon film having a void fraction of about 30 percent to about 65 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 1400 square meters per gram (claim 15 lines 5-8); and
at least one second electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 19) having a void fraction of about 70 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 15 lines 9-12),
wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 15 line 3).
Claim 19 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Faris teaches a current collector is suitable for supplying power to the electrodes of an electrochemical deionization cell (para. 33).
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 invention of claim 19 of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Faris. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Faris teaches current collectors are suitable for supplying current to electrodes. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 23 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 29, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 19 of the reference patent does not teach a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode.
However, Faris further teaches a separator arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode (“A separator may optionally be provided between the electrodes, as is known in the art.” para. 36), which provides the predictable benefits of preventing short-circuiting and strengthening the electrodes (“The separator may function to prevent undesired electrical contact between opposite electrodes, and optionally to provide structure integrity at the electrode surface.” para. 37).
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 invention of claim 19 of the reference patent, by adding a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode, as taught by Faris. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of preventing short-circuiting and strengthening the electrodes, as taught by Faris. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 29 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 30, modified claim 19 of the reference patent further teaches, via Faris, the separator comprises a dielectric material (“The separator may be any commercially available separator capable of electrically isolating the electrodes” para. 38).
The limitations of claim 30 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 31, modified claim 19 of the reference patent further teaches, via Faris, the separator comprises a cellulosic material (“Materials for the separator include, but are not limited to … cellulose (e.g., nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and the like)” para. 38).
The limitations of claim 31 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 46, claim 31 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 30 lines 1-3) the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 30 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 31) having a void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram (claim 30 lines 5-8); and
at least one second electrode comprising a carbonaceous material having a void fraction of about 65 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 700 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 30 lines 9-12), wherein,
a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 30 line 3).
Claim 31 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Faris teaches a current collector is suitable for supplying power to the electrodes of an electrochemical deionization cell (para. 33).
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 invention of claim 31 of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Faris. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Faris teaches current collectors are suitable for supplying current to electrodes. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 46 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 52, Modified claim 31 of the reference patent does not teach a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode.
However, Faris further teaches a separator arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode (“A separator may optionally be provided between the electrodes, as is known in the art.” para. 36), which provides the predictable benefits of preventing short-circuiting and strengthening the electrodes (“The separator may function to prevent undesired electrical contact between opposite electrodes, and optionally to provide structure integrity at the electrode surface.” para. 37).
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 invention of claim 31 of the reference patent, by adding a separator arranged between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode, as taught by Faris. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of preventing short-circuiting and strengthening the electrodes, as taught by Faris. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 52 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 53, modified claim 31 of the reference patent further teaches, via Faris, the separator comprises a dielectric material (“The separator may be any commercially available separator capable of electrically isolating the electrodes” para. 38).
The limitations of claim 53 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 54, modified claim 31 of the reference patent further teaches, via Faris, the separator comprises a cellulosic material (“Materials for the separator include, but are not limited to … cellulose (e.g., nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and the like)” para. 38).
The limitations of claim 54 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Claims 1, 10-12, 18, 23, 32-33, 45-46, and 62 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 19, or 31 of U.S. Patent No. 12421616 (the reference patent) in view of Doyen (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0326067 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 5 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 1 lines 1-3) the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 1 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode including an activated carbon film having a void fraction of about 30 percent to about 65 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 1400 square meters per gram (claim 1 lines 5-8);
at least one second electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 5 lines 1-3) having a void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram (claim 1 lines 9-12),
wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 1 line 3).
Claim 5 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Doyen teaches current collectors are a suitable means for supporting electrodes in an electrochemical deionization system (see e.g., paras. 54 and 101).
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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Doyen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Doyen teaches current collectors are suitable for supplying current to electrodes. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 1 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Doyen. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 10, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 5 of the reference patent does not recite the activated carbon film of the at least one first electrode is microporous.
However, Doyen further teaches activated carbon films for electrodeionization should be microporous to allow for the electrosorption of ions (see e.g., para. 70 and 101).
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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent such that the activated carbon film of the at least one first electrode is microporous, as taught by Doyen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Doyen teaches the microporosity of the carbon film is necessary for electrosorption of ions thereon. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
The limitations of claim 10 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Doyen. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 11, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 5 of the reference patent does not explicitly teach the activated carbon film of the at least one first electrode comprises a binder.
However, Doyen further teaches that an ion conductive binder is preferably used to form a carbon film used as the electrode (para. 42), because this imparts strength to the carbon film (para. 31) while maintaining good conductivity (para. 42).
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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent such that the carbon film of the at least one first electrode comprises a binder, as taught by Doyen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of imparting strength to the carbon film while maintaining good conductivity, as taught by Doyen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 11 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Doyen. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 12, modified claim 5 of the reference patent further teaches, via Doyen, the binder comprises an ion exchange binder (para. 42).
The limitations of claim 12 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Doyen. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 18, modified claim 5 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 5 of the reference claim does not recite the aqueous solution flows through the at least one second electrode.
However, Doyen further teaches that the aqueous solution may suitably flow through at least one of the electrodes (para. 68 and paras. 100 et seq.).
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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent, such that the aqueous solution flows through the at least one second electrode, as taught by Doyen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Doyen teaches this is a suitable arrangement for an electrochemical deionization cell. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 18 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Doyen. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 23, claim 19 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 15 lines 1-3), the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradaic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 15 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode comprising an activated carbon film having a void fraction of about 30 percent to about 65 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 1400 square meters per gram (claim 15 lines 5-8); and
at least one second electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 19) having a void fraction of about 70 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 15 lines 9-12),
wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 15 line 3).
Claim 19 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Doyen teaches current collectors are a suitable means for supporting electrodes in an electrochemical deionization system (see e.g., paras. 54 and 101).
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 invention of claim 19 of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Doyen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Doyen teaches current collectors are suitable for supplying current to electrodes. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 23 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Doyen. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 32, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 19 of the reference patent does not recite the activated carbon film of the at least one first electrode is microporous.
However, Doyen further teaches activated carbon films for electrodeionization should be microporous to allow for the electrosorption of ions (see e.g., para. 70 and 101).
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 invention of claim 19 of the reference patent such that the activated carbon film of the at least one first electrode is microporous, as taught by Doyen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Doyen teaches the microporosity of the carbon film is necessary for electrosorption of ions thereon. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
The limitations of claim 32 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Doyen. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 33, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 19 of the reference patent does not explicitly teach the activated carbon film of the at least one first electrode comprises a binder.
However, Doyen further teaches that an ion conductive binder is preferably used to form a carbon film used as the electrode (para. 42), because this imparts strength to the carbon film (para. 31) while maintaining good conductivity (para. 42).
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 invention of claim 19 of the reference patent such that the carbon film of the at least one first electrode comprises a binder, as taught by Doyen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of imparting strength to the carbon film while maintaining good conductivity, as taught by Doyen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 33 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Doyen. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 45, modified claim 19 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 23 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 19 of the reference claim does not recite the aqueous solution flows through the at least one second electrode.
However, Doyen further teaches that the aqueous solution may suitably flow through at least one of the electrodes (para. 68 and paras. 100 et seq.).
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 invention of claim 19 of the reference patent, such that the aqueous solution flows through the at least one second electrode, as taught by Doyen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Doyen teaches this is a suitable arrangement for an electrochemical deionization cell. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 45 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Doyen. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 46, claim 31 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 30 lines 1-3) the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 30 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 31) having a void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram (claim 30 lines 5-8); and
at least one second electrode comprising a carbonaceous material having a void fraction of about 65 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 700 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 30 lines 9-12), wherein,
a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 30 line 3).
Claim 31 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Doyen teaches current collectors are a suitable means for supporting electrodes in an electrochemical deionization system (see e.g., paras. 54 and 101).
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 invention of claim 31 of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Doyen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Doyen teaches current collectors are suitable for supplying current to electrodes. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 46 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Doyen. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 62, modified claim 31 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 46 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 31 of the reference claim does not recite the aqueous solution flows through the at least one second electrode.
However, Doyen further teaches that the aqueous solution may suitably flow through at least one of the electrodes (para. 68 and paras. 100 et seq.).
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 invention of claim 31 of the reference patent, such that the aqueous solution flows through the at least one second electrode, as taught by Doyen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Doyen teaches this is a suitable arrangement for an electrochemical deionization cell. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 62 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Doyen. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Claims 1, 20, 23, 42, 46, 64 and 67-70 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 12, 19, or 31 of U.S. Patent No. 12421616 (the reference patent) in view of Andelman (US Pat. Pub. 2005/0103634 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 5 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 1 lines 1-3) the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 1 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode including an activated carbon film having a void fraction of about 30 percent to about 65 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 1400 square meters per gram (claim 1 lines 5-8);
at least one second electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 5 lines 1-3) having a void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram (claim 1 lines 9-12),
wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 1 line 3).
Claim 5 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Andelman teaches current collectors are a suitable means for supporting electrodes in an electrochemical deionization system (see e.g., para. 46).
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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Andelman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Andelman teaches current collectors are suitable for supplying current to electrodes. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 1 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Andelman. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 20, modified claim 5 of the reference patent does not recite the electrochemical device is a stacked device comprising a plurality of the at least one first electrode and a plurality of the at least one second electrode.
However, Andelman further teaches the electrochemical device is a stacked device comprising a plurality of the at least one first electrode and a plurality of the at least one second electrode (“parallel pairs of electrodes 2” Figs. 1 and 16 and para. 50), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing a higher voltage power source to be used (“By stacking cells in series, the voltage is additive across the stack and is therefore increased in order to take advantage of less expensive, higher voltage, lower amperage power.” para. 50).
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 invention of claim 5 of the reference patent such that it is a stacked device comprising a plurality of the at least one first electrode and a plurality of the at least one second electrode as taught by Andelman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing a higher voltage power source to be used, as taught by Andelman. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 20 are thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference patent in view of Andelman. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 23, claim 19 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 15 lines 1-3), the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradaic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 15 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode comprising an activated carbon film having a void fraction of about 30 percent to about 65 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 1400 square meters per gram (claim 15 lines 5-8); and
at least one second electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 19) having a void fraction of about 70 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 15 lines 9-12),
wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 15 line 3).
Claim 19 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Andelman teaches current collectors are a suitable means for supporting electrodes in an electrochemical deionization system (see e.g., para. 46).
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 invention of claim 19 of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Andelman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Andelman teaches current collectors are suitable for supplying current to electrodes. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 23 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Andelman. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 42, modified claim 19 of the reference patent does not recite the electrochemical device is a stacked device comprising a plurality of the at least one first electrode and a plurality of the at least one second electrode.
However, Andelman further teaches the electrochemical device is a stacked device comprising a plurality of the at least one first electrode and a plurality of the at least one second electrode (“parallel pairs of electrodes 2” Figs. 1 and 16 and para. 50), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing a higher voltage power source to be used (“By stacking cells in series, the voltage is additive across the stack and is therefore increased in order to take advantage of less expensive, higher voltage, lower amperage power.” para. 50).
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 invention of claim 19 of the reference patent such that it is a stacked device comprising a plurality of the at least one first electrode and a plurality of the at least one second electrode as taught by Andelman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing a higher voltage power source to be used, as taught by Andelman. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 42 are thus rendered obvious by claim 19 of the reference patent in view of Andelman. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 46, claim 31 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution (claim 30 lines 1-3) the electrochemical device comprising:
a faradic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 30 line 3) including:
at least one first electrode comprising a carbon felt (claim 31) having a void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram (claim 30 lines 5-8); and
at least one second electrode comprising a carbonaceous material having a void fraction of about 65 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 700 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 30 lines 9-12), wherein,
a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 30 line 3).
Claim 31 of the reference patent does not recite a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode; and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode.
However, Andelman teaches current collectors are a suitable means for supporting electrodes in an electrochemical deionization system (see e.g., para. 46).
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 invention of claim 31 of the reference patent by adding a current collector in contact with the at least one first electrode and a current collector in contact with the at least one second electrode, as taught by Andelman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Andelman teaches current collectors are suitable for supplying current to electrodes. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 46 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Andelman. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 64, modified claim 31 of the reference patent does not recite the electrochemical device is a stacked device comprising a plurality of the at least one first electrode and a plurality of the at least one second electrode.
However, Andelman further teaches the electrochemical device is a stacked device comprising a plurality of the at least one first electrode and a plurality of the at least one second electrode (“parallel pairs of electrodes 2” Figs. 1 and 16 and para. 50), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing a higher voltage power source to be used (“By stacking cells in series, the voltage is additive across the stack and is therefore increased in order to take advantage of less expensive, higher voltage, lower amperage power.” para. 50).
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 invention of claim 31 of the reference patent such that it is a stacked device comprising a plurality of the at least one first electrode and a plurality of the at least one second electrode as taught by Andelman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing a higher voltage power source to be used, as taught by Andelman. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 64 are thus rendered obvious by claim 31 of the reference patent in view of Andelman. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 67, claim 12 of the reference patent recites an electrochemical device comprising a faradaic porosity cell (“An electrochemical device for at least partially removing or reducing a target ionic species from an aqueous solution using faradaic immobilization” claim 1 lines 1-3), the faradic porosity cell having an electrode stack configuration with multiple layers including a plurality of carbon-based cathodes, a plurality of carbon-based anodes (claim 12),
wherein when the voltage is applied to the faradic porosity cell with a contaminated fluid stream therein, at least one of metal ions, derivatives of metal or metal particles are removed from the contaminated fluid stream and immobilized onto one or more of the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell without desorbing from the one or more of the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell (“using faradaic immobilization” claim 1).
Claim 12 of the reference patent does not recite a housing with an inlet valve to control a contaminated inlet stream and an outlet valve to control an output stream, wherein the plurality of electrodes is disposed within the housing.
However, Andelman teaches that a housing (“Flow paths may be formed by creation of inlets and outlets through capacitor housings,” para. 43) comprising an inlet valve to control a contaminated inlet stream (“103” para. 66 and Fig. 12) and an outlet valve to control an output stream (“104” para. 66 and Fig. 12) are suitable for controlling the flow through an electrochemical deionization cell comprising a plurality of electrodes disposed within said housing (“parallel pairs of electrodes 2” Figs. 1 and 16 and para. 50).
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 invention of claim 12 of the reference patent, by disposing the electrode stack configuration with multiple layers including a plurality of carbon-based cathodes, a plurality of carbon-based anodes in a housing comprising an inlet valve to control a contaminated inlet stream and an outlet valve to control an output stream, as taught by Andelman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Andelman teaches that a housing comprising an inlet and outlet valve is suitable for controlling the flow of water to the electrochemical cell. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified claim 12 of the reference patent does not teach an electrical power supply to supply voltage to the electrochemical device.
However, Andelman further teaches an electrical power supply is suitable for supplying voltage to the electrochemical device (“DC power source 13” para. 63 and Fig. 10).
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 invention of claim 12 of the reference patent, by adding an electrical power supply to supply voltage to the electrochemical device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of supplying voltage to the electrochemical device, as taught by Andelman. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 67 are thus rendered obvious by claim 12 of the reference patent in view of Andelman. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 68, modified claim 12 of the reference patent does not recite at least one membrane on one of the plurality of carbon-based anodes or one of the plurality of carbon-based cathodes and at least one spacer between some of the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell.
However, Andelman further teaches at least one membrane on one of the plurality of carbon-based anodes or one of the plurality of carbon-based cathodes (“charge barrier 3 may be a permselective membrane of either polarity and either the same polarity as each other or an opposite polarity.” para. 46 and Fig. 1) and at least one spacer between some of the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell (“spacer 4” para. 46 and Fig. 1, see also Fig. 16).
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 invention of claim 12 of the reference patent, by adding at least one membrane on one of the plurality of carbon-based anodes or one of the plurality of carbon-based cathodes and at least one spacer between some of the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell, as taught by Andelman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Andelman teaches these components are suitable for an electrochemical deionization cell. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 68 are thus rendered obvious by claim 12 of the reference patent in view of Andelman. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 69, modified claim 12 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 67 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 12 of the reference patent does not recite one or more separators in the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell including a thickness of less than 1000 micrometers.
However, Andelman further teaches one or more separators in the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell (“spacer 4” para. 46 and Fig. 1, see also Fig. 16) including a thickness of less than about 255 micrometers, a range within the claimed range (“It is desirable that the flow spacer 4 be thin, e.g., under 0.01 inches thick” para. 47), which enhance reversal of the electric field (para. 34).
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 invention of claim 12 of the reference patent by adding one or more separators in the multiple layers of the faradic porosity cell including a thickness of less than 255 micrometers, a range within the claimed range, as taught by Andelman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of enhancing reversal of the electric field, as taught by Andelman. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 69 are thus rendered obvious by claim 12 of the reference patent in view of Andelman. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 70, modified claim 12 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 67 obvious, as described above.
Claim 12 of the reference patent further recites the plurality of carbon-based anodes include a void fraction of at least 30% (“at least one first electrode … having a void fraction of about 30% to about 65%” claim 1 lines 5-6) and the plurality of carbon-based cathodes include a void fraction of at least 65% (“at least one second electrode … having a void fraction of about or greater than 95%” claim 1 lines 9-11).
The limitations of claim 70 are thus rendered obvious by claim 12 of the reference patent in view of Andelman. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Claims 71 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12421616 (the reference patent) in view of Andelman (US Pat. Pub. 2005/0103634 A1), as applied to claim 67, and further in view of Faris (US Pat. Pub. 2004/0095706 A1).
Regarding claim 71, modified claim 12 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 67 obvious, as described above.
Modified claim 12 of the reference patent does not recite the plurality of electrodes includes at least one first electrode comprising a carbon felt or woven carbon cloth.
However, Faris teaches carbon felt and woven carbon cloth are suitable materials for carbon electrodes in an electrochemical deionization cell (para. 34).
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 carbon felt or woven carbon cloth as the material for the carbon electrodes in the invention of claim 12 of the reference patent. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Faris teaches these materials are suitable as carbon materials for electrochemical deionization cells. Use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
The limitations of claim 71 are thus rendered obvious by claim 12 of the reference patent in view of Andelman and Faris. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 56-57 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:
Regarding claims 56 and 57, the prior art of record does not reasonably teach or disclose the cumulative limitations of claims 56 and 57, and the cumulative limitations of claims 56 and 57 are not anticipated or rendered obvious by the claims of US Pat. No. 12421616.
Specifically, the prior art of record does not teach or render obvious the specific combination of a first electrode comprising a carbon felt having a void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram (claim 46) and either:
a) a second electrode comprising a woven cloth having a void fraction of about 65 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 700 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 56) or
b) a second electrode comprising an activated carbon nonwoven felt having a void fraction of about 65 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 700 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 57).
The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious a carbon felt having a void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram, and thus the cumulative limitations of claim 46, and therefore claims 56 and 57, are considered to be patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
Furthermore, while claim 46 is rendered obvious by claim 31 of US Pat. No. 12421616, this patent does not claim the carbon felt having a void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram in combination with either:
a) a second electrode comprising a woven cloth having a void fraction of about 65 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 700 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 56) or
b) a second electrode comprising an activated carbon nonwoven felt having a void fraction of about 65 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 700 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram (claim 57).
Claims 56 and 57 are therefore not rendered obvious by the claims of US Pat. No. 12421616.
Claims 56 and 57 would therefore be patentably distinguished from both the prior art and US Pat. No. 12421616 if rewritten in independent form including the limitations of the base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 15-16, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 16-17, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejections on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting have been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments necessitate new rejections un on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 17, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 17-23, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have therefore been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments necessitate new rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 17-18 that Faris does not teach the second electrode comprises a carbon felt, and it would therefore not be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second electrode of Faris to comprise a carbon felt having the specific recited combination of void fraction and surface areas. Specifically, Applicant argues that Examiner indicated Faris does not teach the second electrode carbon felt on p. 15 of the Office action mailed 09/25/2025.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner agrees in part. Examiner agrees that, absent inappropriate hindsight bias, it would not have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Faris to use a specific combination of materials that was not reported in the prior art i.e., the carbon felt having the void fraction of about or greater than 95 percent and a surface area of about 0.1 square meters per gram to about 5 square meters per gram, as recited in claims 1 and 46.
However, Examiner did not indicate Faris does not teach the use of a carbon felt for the second electrode. Rather, Examiner indicated on p. 15 of the Office action dated 09/25/2025 that modified Faris does not teach the second electrode is carbon felt as relates to claim 13, because, for the claim in question, the second electrode of Faris had been modified to use the carbon foam of Wyatt (see rejection of claim 1 on p. 10-11 of the Office action dated 09/25/2025).
As indicated in the rejection of claim 57 on p. 27-28 of the Office action dated 09/25/2025, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in this Office action, Faris does teach the second electrode is a carbon felt or woven carbon. It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the carbon felt of Faris to have a void fraction of about 70 percent to about 99.9 percent and a surface area of about 1200 square meters per gram to about 2300 square meters per gram, because carbon materials having these properties were known to be suitable for electrodes in the prior art.
Thus, while Applicant’s arguments are persuasive regarding claims 1, 46, and those claims depending therefrom, they are not persuasive regarding claim 23 and those claims depending therefrom.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues on p. 18-20 that the systems of Faris and Doyen are not “faradic porosity cells … wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage” as recited in amended claims 1, 23, and 46, and that Faris and Doyen therefore do not read on the limitations of claims 1, 23, and 46. Specifically, Applicant argues that the capacitive deionization process that Faris and Doyen use is distinct from the faradic deionization process employed by the instant invention, because the ions in Faris and Doyen are released from the electrode when application of a voltage is ceased, whereas the instant invention does not release ions from the electrodes until a reverse bias is applied.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether Faris and/or Doyen reasonably teach or render obvious the limitations “faradic porosity cells … wherein a target ionic species is immobilized on the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode such that the target ionic species is not desorbed into a waste stream without application of an external voltage” as recited in claims 1, 23, and 46.
In the instant case, the limitations in question are functional recitations i.e., they define the apparatus by how it operates, rather than what it is. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a functional limitation only limits an apparatus inasmuch as the apparatus must be capable of performing the recited limitation (MPEP § 2114).
Thus, in the instant case, the limitations require that Faris (or modified Faris) must be capable of retaining ionic species in the electrode even after the applied potential is removed. As indicated by the instant specification, an electrochemical cell having the structure of Faris (or modified Faris) is capable of retaining at least some of the ions on the electrode even after application of the bias is stopped. This is further confirmed by Doyen and Andelman, which teach that CDI systems may require application of a reverse voltage to fully desorb the ions (see Doyen para. 66 and Andelman para. 106). No evidence that the system of Faris (or modified Faris) cannot retain at least some ions in the electrodes after application of a potential is stopped has been provided by Applicant.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 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
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795