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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 4th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed November 4th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-33 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 4th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Beh (US10821395B2) does not disclose a “collection of anion and cation exchange membranes” within a single chamber and that membranes in Beh merely bound the chamber rather than being disposed within it. However, there is no recitation within the claims of a collection of anion and cation exchange membranes within a single chamber, but rather flow paths bounded by membranes. Further, the present rejection does not rely on Beh as teaching a collection of membranes within a single chamber. Beh is relied upon teaching an electrodialytic stack, alternating ion-exchange membranes, and membrane-bounded flow paths defined between adjacent membranes. The rejection does not assert that Beh’s membranes themselves satisfy the “packed bed” limitation. Rather, Beh provides the membrane stack architecture, and Palakkal (“Advancing electrodeionization with conductive ionomer binders that immobilize ion-exchange resin particles into porous wafer substrates”) supplies the packed-bed structure disposed within the membrane-bounded chamber.
Applicant further argues that because the claims now require a packed bed “disposed between and separate from the ion-exchange membranes,” the membranes themselves cannot constitute the claimed collection, as a structure cannot be separate from itself. However, the rejection does not equate the membranes with the claimed packed bed. In the applied combination Beh provides membrane-bounded flow paths and Palakkal teaches discrete ion-exchange resin particles disposed within such membrane-bounded diluate chambers. Palakkal expressly teaches: “loosely packed cation and anion-exchange resin (CER and AER) particles in the diluate liquid chamber.” (Palakkal p. 1) These resin particles are physically distinct from, and structurally separate from, the ion-exchange membranes that bound the chamber. The packed bed occupies the interior flow path and is separate from the membranes.
Applicant argues that Zhang only describes membrane polymer composition and does not disclose discrete ion-exchange particles in a packed bed. However, the present rejection relies on Palakkal, not Zhang, to teach the packed-bed limitation. The combination of Beh and Palakkal explicitly teaches discrete ion-exchange resin particles, loosely packed in the diluate chamber bounded by alternating ion-exchange membranes.
Applicant asserts that Beh discloses open fluid passages and contains no disclosure of packed beds within the flow paths. This is acknowledged. Beh does not expressly disclose a packed bed within the chamber. That limitation is supplied by Palakkal, which expressly teaches that conventional EDI systems include “loosely packed cation and anion-exchange resin (CER and AER) particles in the diluate liquid chamber” (Palakkal p. 1). The rejection is based on the combination of Beh and Palakkal, not on Beh alone.
Applicant argues that Palakkal pertains to conventional EDI systems relying on water splitting and does not suggest use in a redox shuttle assisted system like Bah. Applicant further asserts that incorporating Palakkal’s packed bed into BEH would obstruct redox electrolyte circulation and render Beh unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. However, this argument is not persuasive. First, the Examiner acknowledges that Palakkal describes conventional EDI systems and does not disclose a redox shuttle assisted electrode system. However, the rejection does not rely on Palakkal for its electrode chemistry or charge-transfer mechanism. Rather, Palakkal is relied upon for a structural teaching: the inclusion of a packed bed of discrete ion-exchange particles disposed within a membrane-bounded diluate chamber. Palakkal expressly teaches that conventional EDI systems feature “loosely packed cation and anion-exchange resin (CER and AER) particles in the diluate liquid chamber”(Palakkal p. 1). Palakkal further teaches that such particle beds improve ionic transport performance, including increased conductivity and improved ion removal rates (Palakkal p. 4-6). These teachings concern the structural and transport characteristics within membrane-bounded flow chambers. They are not dependent on any specific electrode mechanism. Second, Applicant’s assertion that the modification would obstruct redox shuttle circulation is unsupported by structural incompatibility in the applied references. Beh’s redox shuttle loop operates through electrode-associated pathways separated from the diluate and concentrate streams by ion-exchange membranes. The packed bed taught by Palakkal is disposed within the membrane-bounded diluate chamber, not within the redox shuttle loop itself. Incorporating a porous packed bed of ion-exchange particles into the diluate flow path would not eliminate the membranes, not remove electrodes, not eliminate redox species, nor prevent application of an electric field. Palakkal further teaches that the resin wafers are porous and permit bulk liquid flow (See discussion of porosity and SEM images, Fig. 3). Thus the packed bed does not constitute a solid obstruction but rather a flow-permeable ion-conductive structure. Third, the proposed modification does not change Beh’s principle of operation. Beh remains an electrodialytic system employing membranes and electrodes. The addition of ion-exchange material within the membrane-bounded chamber would enhance ionic conductivity and ion transport, known functions of such materials, without altering the redox shuttle mechanism itself.
Finally, applicant asserts that amendment of the independent claims renders the rejection moot. However, the amended limitation requiring a packed bed of discrete ion-exchange particles disposed between and separate from the membranes is taught by Palakkal, as discussed above. Accordingly the amendment does not overcome the applied combination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 7, 24, 26 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4 and 24, these claims recite that the at least one collection of ion exchange materials “includes the ion exchange resin in an amount of 80 wt.% or less.” The claims do not specify the reference basis for the recited weight percentage making it unclear whether the weight percentage refers to wt.% of resin relative to the collection of ion exchange materials, wt.% relative to the packed bed, wt.% relative to total solids in the flow path or some other composition. Because the denominator for the recited weight percentage is not specified, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 7 and 26, these claims recite incorporation of at least one collection of ion exchange materials into at least one of the ion exchange membranes. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how the at least one collection of ion exchange materials can both comprise a packed bed disposed between and separate from the ion exchange membranes (claim 1 and 21 from which these claims depend) and be incorporated into at least one of the ion exchange membranes.
Regarding claim 33, the claim recites that the at least one collection of ion exchange materials comprises at least one packed bed disposed between and separate from the ion exchange membranes. The claim further recites that the at least one collection of ion exchange materials is incorporated into at least one of the first outer ion exchange membrane, the second outer ion exchange membrane, and the central ion exchange membrane. It is unclear how the same collection of ion exchange materials can simultaneously be disposed between and separate from the ion exchange membranes and also be incorporated into at least one of those same membranes. This internal inconsistency renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-23, 25 and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beh et al.(US10821395B2) in view of Palakkal, "Advancing electrodeionization with conductive ionomer binders that immobilize ion-exchange resin particles into porous wafer substrates".
Regarding claim 1, Beh et al. discloses An electrodialytic stack comprising: a concentrate flow path (Beh et al. "Salinate chamber" #104 Fig. 1A-B) bounded by a central ion exchange membrane and a first outer ion exchange membrane of a different type than the central ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. shown in Fig. 1A-B), wherein a concentrate stream (Beh et al. "salinate stream" #130 Fig. 1A-B) moves through the concentrate flow path; a dilute flow path (Beh et al. "Desalinate chamber" #106 Fig. 1A-B) bounded by the central ion exchange membrane and a second outer ion exchange membrane of a different type than the central ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. shown in Fig. 1A-B), wherein a dilute stream (Beh et al. "Desalinate stream" #132 Fig. 1A-B) moves through the dilute flow path; a redox shuttle loop separated from the concentrate stream by the first outer ion exchange membrane and separated from the dilute stream by the second outer ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. "redox shuttle" col. 6 par. 1 and shown in Fig. 1A-B); a first electrode (Beh et al. col. 6 "cathode") and a second electrode (Beh et al. col. 6 "anode") operable to apply a voltage across the electrodialytic stack.
Beh et al. does not disclose at least one packed bed disposed between and separate from the ion exchange membranes, occupying at least one of the concentrate flow path and the dilute flow path as a free-standing bed of discrete ion-exchange particles. Insofar as claim 1 requires migration ‘via at least one collection of ion exchange materials’ that ‘comprises at least one packed bed…as a free standing bed of discrete ion-exchange particles,’ Beh does not disclose the required collection/packed bed structure within the concentrate and/or dilute flow path.
Palakkal relates to electrodeionization (EDI) systems by employing ion-exchange membranes and resin particles in membrane-bounded chambers. Palakkal expressly teaches “its traditional design features loosely packed cation and anion-exchange resin (CER and AER) particles in the diluate liquid chamber” (Palakkal p. 1). Palakkal further explains that EDI systems consist of “alternating liquid compartments which are partitioned by alternating cation and anion-exchange membranes” (Palakkal p. 1). Thus teaching a collection of ion exchange materials (CER and AER particles) disposed in diluate liquid chambers where the chamber is bounded by alternating ion-exchange membranes with particles that are loosely packed (a packed bed). Because Palakkal places the loose resin particles in the membrane-bounded diluate compartment (rather than forming the membranes), the particle bed is ‘disposed between and separate from’ the bounding ion-exchange membranes and, as the chamber fill media through which the diluate stream passes, ‘occupies the flow path’ as a free-standing bed of discrete particles. Palakkal additionally discloses resin wafers in which “ion-exchange resin particles are immobilized” (Palakkal p. 1) and provides SEM images showing discrete resin beads (Fig. 3). Palakkal further teaches that inclusion of such resin beds improves performance, including higher ionic conductivity and increased removal productivity (Palakkal p. 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the membrane-bounded concentrate flow path and the membrane-bounded diluate flow path of Beh et al. (e.g., the salinate chamber and/or the desalinate chamber) to include the packed bed of discrete ion-exchange particles taught by Palakkal in order to improve ionic conductivity and ion transport within the chamber. Palakkal expressly teaches that inclusion of loosely packed resin particles within membrane-bounded diluate chambers augments conductivity and enhances ion removal performance (Palakkal p. 4-6). Palakkal further reports that ionomer binding resin wafers resulted in a ‘25% faster removal of NaCl from the diluate solution’ and that ‘ionomer RWs provided up to 4.3% reduction in energy consumption’ compared to benchmark wafers. Incorporating known ion-exchange particle beds into another electrodialytic membrane architecture to obtain the same known improvements represents the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions. The modification would merely enhance ion transport within Beh’s membrane-defined chamber and would not alter the fundamental electrodialytic operation.
Regarding claim 2, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials comprises a first collection of ion exchange materials located in the concentrate flow path and a second collection of ion exchange materials located in the dilute flow path (Beh et al. col. 5-6 describing membrane-bounded concentrate/diluate chambers; Palakkal teaching placement of ion exchange particle beds within membrane bounded liquid chambers to enhance conductivity).
Regarding claim 3, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials comprises a cation exchange material and an anion ion exchange material (Palakkal, p. 1 “loosely packed cation and anion-exchange resin (CER and AER) particles”).
Regarding claim 5, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials comprises a binder (Palakkal title and throughout, resin wafers formed using “conductive ionomer binders”).
Regarding claim 6, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the at least one packed bed comprises an ion exchange resin (Palakkal p. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the central ion exchange membrane comprises an anion exchange membrane and wherein the first and second outer ion exchange membranes comprise cation exchange membranes (Beh et al. Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 9, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the central ion exchange membrane comprises a cation exchange membrane and wherein the first and second outer ion exchange membranes comprise anion exchange membranes (Beh et al. Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 10, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the redox shuttle loop comprises a negatively charged redox active species (Beh et al. col. 6 par. 2 lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 11, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the redox shuttle loop comprises ferrocyanide/ferricyanide ([Fe(CN)6]4-/[Fe(CN)6]3-) (Beh et al. col. 6 par. 2 lines 19-20) or a negatively charged ferrocene derivative.
Regarding claim 12, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the redox shuttle loop comprises a positively charged redox active species (Beh et al. col. 6 par. 1 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the redox shuttle loop comprises bis(trimethylammoniopropyl) ferrocene/bis(trimethylammoniopropyl) ferrocenium ([BTMAP-Fc]2+/[BTMAP-Fc ]3+) or a positively charged ferrocene derivative (Beh et al. col. 6 par. 1 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the redox shuttle loop comprises: a first redox stream (Beh et al. col. 6 par. 1 "cathode chamber") separated from the concentrate stream (Beh et al. col. 6 par.1 "salinate chamber" provides "salinate stream") by the first outer ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. col. 6 par 1 "anion exchange membrane" #110); and a second redox stream (Beh et al. "anode chamber") separated from the dilute stream (Beh et al. "desalinate chamber" houses "desalinate stream") by the second outer ion exchange membrane.
Regarding claim 15, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 14, wherein the first redox stream is in fluid communication with the second redox stream (Beh et al. illustrated by arrows #126 and #128 in Fig. 1A-B).
Regarding claim 16, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses an ion transfer system (Beh et al. col. 10 line 7 "energy storage system") comprising: at least one ion transfer module (Beh et al. col. 10 line 8 "electrochemical desalination battery" where the detailed disclosure explains that "electrochemical approaches to desalination have the potential to scale modularly") comprising: a modular dilute inlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #332 "port" col. 12 line 40) in fluid communication with a modular dilute outlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #336 "port" col. 12 line 51); and a modular concentrate inlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #334 "port" col. 12 line 40) in fluid communication with a modular concentrate outlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #338 "port" col. 12 line 51); and at least one redox shuttle assisted electrodeionization stack (Beh et al. "cell stack" col. 12 line 32 col. 4 lines 52-53 and further explains in col. 14 that these modules may include other optional desalination units #360 which can utilize a desalination technique other than an electrochemical battery such as capacitive de ionization) comprising: a concentrate flow path (Beh et al. "electrolyte chamber" #306 Fig. 3A) comprising a concentrate inlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #334 "port" col. 12 line 40) in fluid communication with a concentrate outlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #334 "port" col. 12 line 51), the concentrate flow path bounded by a central ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #312 "second ion exchange membrane" col. 11 line 37) and a first outer ion exchange membrane of a different type than the central ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #314 "first ion exchange membrane" col. 11 line 24), wherein a concentrate stream moves through the concentrate flow path (Beh et al. col. 12 lines 55-60 describes that the system continuously generates a desalinated and salinated stream); a dilute flow path (Beh et al. "electrolyte chamber" #304 Fig. 3A though Beh et al. explains that either of these chambers may alternate roles of dilute or concentrate chambers depending on the mode) comprising a dilute inlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #332 "port" col. 12 line 40) in fluid communication with a dilute outlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #336 "port" col. 12 line 51), the dilute flow path bounded by the central ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #312 "second ion exchange membrane" col. 11 line 37) and a second outer ion exchange membrane of a different type than the central ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #310 "third ion exchange membrane" col. 11 line 51), wherein a dilute stream moves through the dilute flow path; a feed flow path (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #330 "first water tank" col. 12 line 38) in fluid communication with at least one of the concentrate inlet and the dilute inlet (Beh et al. both #334 and #332 are shown in Fig. 3A), the feed flow path fluidly couplable to at least one of the concentrate outlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #344 "port"), the dilute outlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #342 "port"), the modular dilute outlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #336 "port" col. 12 line 51), and the modular concentrate outlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A#338 "port" col.12 line 51); a redox shuttle loop (Beh et al. describes electrode compartments separated from process streams by ion exchange membranes and including redox-active electrolyte in electrode chambers) separated from the concentrate stream by the first outer ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #314 "first ion exchange membrane" col. 11 line 24), the redox shuttle loop separated from the dilute stream by the second outer ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #310 "third ion exchange membrane" col. 11 line 51); a first electrode (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #318 col. 10 line 39 "electrode plate") and a second electrode (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #316 col. 10 lines 41-42 "electrode plate") operable to apply a voltage across the at least one redox shuttle assisted electrodeionization stack (Beh et al. col. 6 describing “anode and “cathode applying potential across the stack); and at least one collection of ion exchange materials in at least one of the concentrate flow path and the dilute flow path (Beh et al. col. 5-6 describing membrane-bounded concentrate/diluate chambers; Palakkal teaching placement of ion exchange particle beds within membrane bounded liquid chambers to enhance conductivity), wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials: comprises at least one packed bed disposed between and separate from the ion-exchange membranes, occupying at least one of the concentrate flow path and the dilute flow path as a free-standing bed of discrete ion-exchange particles; and migrates ions between the central ion exchange membrane and at least one of the first and second outer ion exchange membranes (Palakkal p. 1 teaches inclusion of ion-exchange particle beds within membrane-bounded electrodialytic flow compartments to enhance ionic conductivity and ion transport between adjacent ion exchange membranes under an applied electric field).
Regarding claim 17, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the ion transfer system of claim 16, wherein the at least one ion transfer module comprises a second redox shuttle assisted electrodeionization stack (Beh et al. col 14 par. 2 discloses in certain embodiments may include one or more additional EDB units, represented by cell stack 320b).
Regarding claim 18, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the ion transfer system of claim 16, wherein the at least one ion transfer module comprises a redox shuttle assisted electrodialytic stack (Beh et al. describes the redox shuttle assisted electrodialytic stack in col. 10 and 11 and it is illustrated in Fig. 3A as well as throughout many other figures of the disclosure).
Regarding claim 19, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the ion transfer system of claim 16, wherein the at least one ion transfer module comprises a reverse osmosis system (Beh et al. explains in col. 14 that these modules may include other optional desalination units #360 which can utilize a desalination technique other than an electrochemical battery such as reverse osmosis [line 19]).
Regarding claim 20, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the ion transfer system of claim 16, wherein the at least one ion transfer module comprises an electrodeionization system (Beh et al. explains in col. 14 that these modules may include other optional desalination units #360 which can utilize a desalination technique other than an electrochemical battery such as electrode ionization "capacitive deionization" [line 19]).
Regarding claim 21, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses a method comprising: inputting a concentrate stream (Beh et al. input water from tank [col. 12 lines 59- 60]) into a concentrate flow path (Beh et al. #306 "water chamber" where electrolyte concentration increase [lines 48-49]) of an electrodialytic stack (Beh et al. describes the redox shuttle assisted electrodialytic stack in col. 10 and 11 and it is illustrated in Fig. 3A as well as throughout many other figures of the disclosure), the concentrate flow path bounded by a first outer ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #314 "first ion exchange membrane" [col. 11 line 24]) and a central ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #312 "second ion exchange membrane" col. 11 line 37); inputting a dilute stream into a dilute flow path of the electrodialytic stack (Beh et al. col. 12 describes input water from tank via switching unit to direct salinated and desalinated water), the dilute flow path bounded by a second outer ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #310 "third ion exchange membrane" col. 11 line 51) and the central ion exchange membrane; circulating a redox shuttle loop around the first and second outer ion exchange membranes (Beh et al. col. 6 describes electrode compartments separated from process streams by ion exchange membranes and containing redox-active electrolyte that circulates in the electrode loop); applying a voltage across the electrodialytic stack (Beh et al. col. 6 describes the anode and cathode applying potential across the stack); and migrating ions between the central ion exchange membrane and at least one of the first and second outer ion exchange membranes via at least one collection of ion exchange materials in at least one of the concentrate flow path and the dilute flow path (Beh et al. col. 5-6 describing membrane-bounded concentrate/diluate chambers through which ions migrate; Palakkal teaching placement of ion exchange particle beds (collection of ion exchange materials) within membrane bounded liquid chambers to enhance conductivity), wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials comprises at least one packed bed disposed between and separate from the ion-exchange membranes, occupying at least one of the concentrate flow path and the dilute flow path as a free-standing bed of discrete ion-exchange particles (Palakkal p. 1 teaches inclusion of ion-exchange particle beds within membrane-bounded electrodialytic flow compartments to enhance ionic conductivity and ion transport between adjacent ion exchange membranes under an applied electric field).
Regarding claim 22, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials comprises a first collection of ion exchange materials located in the concentrate flow path and a second collection of ion exchange materials located in the dilute flow path (Beh et al. col. 5-6 describing membrane-bounded concentrate/diluate chambers; Palakkal teaching placement of ion exchange particle beds within membrane bounded liquid chambers to enhance conductivity).
Regarding claim 23, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials comprises a cation exchange material and an anion exchange material (Palakkal, p. 1 “loosely packed cation and anion-exchange resin (CER and AER) particles”).
Regarding claim 25, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the at least one packed bed comprises an ion exchange resin (Palakkal p. 1).
Regarding claim 27, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the central ion exchange membrane comprises an anion exchange membrane (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #312 "second ion exchange membrane" col. 11 line 37) and wherein the first and second outer ion exchange membranes comprise cation exchange membranes (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #314 and #310 col. 11 line 24 and 51, Beh et al. describes throughout col. 11 lines 24-60 that in some embodiments these membranes are reversed).
Regarding claim 28, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the central ion exchange membrane comprises a cation exchange membrane and wherein the first and second outer ion exchange membranes comprise anion exchange membranes (Beh et al. describes throughout col. 11 lines 24-60 that in some embodiments these membranes are reversed).
Regarding claim 29, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the redox shuttle loop comprises a negatively charged redox active species (Beh et al. col. 6 par. 2 lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 30, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the redox shuttle loop comprises ferrocyanide/ferricyanide ([Fe(CN)6]4-/[Fe(CN)6]3-) or a negatively charged ferrocene derivative (Beh et al. col. 6 par. 2 lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 31, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the redox shuttle loop comprises a positively charged redox active species (Beh et al. col. 6 par. 1 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 32, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the redox shuttle loop comprises bis(trimethylammoniopropyl) ferrocene/bis(trimethylammoniopropyl) ferrocenium ([BTMAP-Fc]2+/[BTMAP-Fc]3+) or a positively charged ferrocene derivative (Beh et al. col. 6 par. 1 lines 1-4).
Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beh et al.(US10821395B2) in view of Palakkal, "Advancing electrodeionization with conductive ionomer binders that immobilize ion-exchange resin particles into porous wafer substrates" as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Lin (US-7452920-B2).
Regarding claim 4, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials includes an ion exchange resin described by Palakkal as resin wafers in which “ion-exchange resin particles are immobilized” within a binder matrix; the wafer is a composite structure of resin and binder, and therefore the resin content is necessarily less than 100 wt.% of the total collection.
Beh et al. in view of Palakkal does not explicitly describe wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials includes the ion exchange resin in an amount of 80 wt.% or less as recited in claim 4.
Lin is directed to electrically and ionically conduction porous resin wafers for use in electrodeionization systems and therefore is squarely within the same field of electrochemical separation devices employing resin-filled structures. Lin expressly teaches that “The weight percent of resins in the material is variable but generally in the range of from about 30 to about 75% by weight.” (Lin col. 3 lines 29-31). Lin further teaches that the thermoplastic binder is present in the complementary range “of about 25% to about 70% by weight of the material.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the resin weight percent ranges taught by Lin in the resin-filled electrochemical separation device of Beh in order to achieve optimized mechanical stability, porosity, and ionic conductivity of the ion exchange body. Lin expressly teaches that controlling resin wt.% and binder wt.% affects durability, porosity, and conductivity of the composite resin structure (Lin col. 3), which are performance parameters directly relevant to the electrodialytic device of Beh et al.. Because both references are directed to ion exchange resin structures used within electrically driven membrane separation systems, and because Lin teaches resin content in the range of about 30-75 wt.% provides improved conductivity and structural properties, it would have been a predictable design choice to select such resin loading ranges when implementing resin-filled compartments in Beh’s device to balance ionic transport efficiency with structural integrity.
Regarding claim 24, Beh et al. in view of Palakkal discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials includes the ion exchange resin in an amount of 80 wt.% or less (by suggestion of Palakkal and Lin, see rejection of claim 4 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779