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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 4, 2026 has been entered. Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 6, 7 and 26. Claims 1-5, 8-25, and 27-33 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the previous Office Action mailed March 4, 2026. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regard to patentability for the reasons set forth below.
With respect to Applicant’s prior arguments regarding the mapping of the “collection of ion exchange materials” and whether the proposed modification would render Beh unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the arguments are not persuasive. The present rejection does not rely on Beh’s ion exchange membranes as the claimed packed beds. Rather, Beh is relied upon for the redox shuttle assisted electrodialytic stack architecture, and the added references are relied upon for the claimed packed-bed and resin-wafer features. The proposed combination does not destroy Beh’s redox shuttle assisted electrodialytic operation, but instead applies known electrodeionization packed-bed/resin-wafer structures within Beh’s membrane-bounded flow paths for their known ion-transport and structural-support functions.
Applicant argues that Beh and Palakkal do not teach or suggest a first packed bed in the concentrate flow path and a second packed bed in the dilute flow path, each formed from a respective mixture comprising ion exchange resin, polyethylene binder, and a pore-forming agent, with the recited membrane-to-membrane ion migration functions. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection. The present rejection no longer relies solely on Palakkal for these features. Datta teaches resin-wafer electrodeionization structures used in dilute and concentrate compartments and provides express reasons for using such wafers in concentrate compartments, including reducing force imbalance on membranes, preventing flow channeling, and facilitating sealing. Lin and/or Datta further teach known polyethylene-bound ion exchange resin wafer compositions and porous resin-wafer structures suitable for electrodeionization. See 103 rejection below for further detail.
Applicant further argues that Palakkal’s conductive ionomer is not a polyethylene binder and that substituting polyethylene for Palakkal’s binder would alter Palakkal’s operation. This argument is not persuasive because the present rejection does not depend on a simple substitution of polyethylene into Palakkal’s conduction ionomer wafer. Rather, the rejection relies on the known use of polyethylene-bound ion exchange resin wafers in electrodeionization systems, as taught by Datta and/or Lin, and applies those known structures to Beh’s redox shuttle assisted electrodialytic stack. Thus, the rejection is based on the use of known electrodeionization resin-wafer structures for their known functions.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4 and 24 are also not persuasive. While Applicant argues that Lin is directed to conventional electrodeionization resin wafers, Lin is relied upon for the resin-content limitation and related resin-wafer composition teachings. The remaining features of the independent claims are supplied by Beh in combination with the additional electrodeionization water references discussed above. Therefore the amended “80 wt.-% or less” limitations do not render claims 4 and 24 patentable.
With respect to claim 33, Applicant’s argument that the prior 112(b) issue has been cured is acknowledged. However, claim 33 is not in condition for allowance. As amended, claim 33 is directed to a membrane-incorporated embodiment comprising a porous support membrane, an ionomer membrane coating, and a membrane thickness between 50 microns and 120 microns. The present action newly rejects claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art directed to reinforced/composite ion exchange membranes having porous supports and ionomer or ion-exchange polymer coatings.
For at least the reasons above and the reasons set forth in the rejections, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive, and the claims remain rejected.
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 1-5, 8-25, and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beh et al. (US-10821395-B2) in view of Datta (US-6495014-B1), and further in view of Lin (US-7452920-B2).
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 and a second electrode operable to apply a voltage across the electrodialytic stack (Beh et al. col. 6 describing the electrodes as “anode” and “cathode”).
Beh et al does not explicitly disclose at least one collection of ion exchange materials in each of the concentrate flow path and the dilute flow path, wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials: comprises a first packed bed located in the concentrate flow path and a second packed bed located in the dilute flow path, each of the first packed bed and the second packed bed being disposed between and separate from the ion exchange membranes, and occupying the flow path in which the packed bed is located as a free-standing bed of discrete ion exchange particles; wherein each of the first packed bed and the second packed bed comprises ion exchange materials formed from a respective mixture comprising ion exchange resin, polyethylene binder, and a pore-forming agent; and wherein the first packed bed migrates ions between the central ion exchange membrane and the first outer ion exchange membrane, and the second packed bed migrates ions between the central ion exchange membrane and the second outer ion exchange membrane.
Datta relates to electrodeionization devices employing porous immobilized ion-exchange material positioned between ion-exchange membranes. Datta claim 1 expressly teaches an electrodeionization device comprising “a cation-exchange membrane”, “an anion-exchange membrane”, and “porous ion-exchange material, in the form of a wafer … positioned intermediate said cation-exchange membrane and said anion exchange membrane to form a compartment” wherein the material comprises “anion-exchange entities and cation exchange entities immobilized relative to each other via a binder”. Datta further teaches that “Four pairs of dilute and concentrate compartments packed with the resin wafers were assembled” (col. 8) and that the “concentrating compartment 43 also can be fitted with a wafer so that there are no force imbalances on the membranes” (Datta col. 10), thereby teaching resin wafers/packed beds in both dilute and concentrate compartments. Datta further explains that fitting the concentrating compartment with a wafer assured that the wafers are evenly pressed on the membranes, prevents flow channeling between the membranes and the wafers and facilitates sealing between the compartments. Datta also teaches ion-migration function of the wafer because, as feed permeates through the wafer, anions and cations are pulled off of the ion-exchange resin particles as a result of an electrical potential applied to the stack. Additionally, Datta Example 2 teaches polyethylene-bound ion-exchange resin wafers. Datta states that “Wafers were manufactured using 15 to 20 weight percent polyethylene as binding material” and further teaches that the “resins and the polyethylene were mixed, heated and molded to produce a porous wafer”. Datta Example 6 also teaches that the resin wafers may be made using “an average of 30 weight percent (range of 25 to 35 weight percent) of a binding material, such as polyethylene” demonstrating that polyethylene was a known structural binder for porous ion-exchange resin wafers used in electrodeionization systems.
Lin is directed to ionically conductive porous resin wafers for electrodeionization systems and teaches controlling resin wafer composition and porosity. Lin col. 3 teaches resin contents “from about 30 to about 75% by weight” and thermoplastic binder contents “of about 25% to about 70% by weight of the material”. Lin col. 3 further teaches using removable water-soluble additives, such as sugar, to form or control porosity in the wafer, which corresponds to the claimed pore-forming agent. Thus, Lin teaches porous ion-exchange resin wafer compositions including ion-exchange resin, thermoplastic/polyethylene binder, and removable pore-forming additives, and further teaches resin contents satisfying the claimed 80 wt.- % or less resin limitation.
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 the membrane-bounded concentrate and dilute flow paths of Beh et al. to include the porous ion-exchange resin wafer/packed-bed structures taught by Datta, with the resin/polyethylene/pore-forming-agent composition taught or suggested by Datta and Lin, in order to improve ion transport, reduce electrical resistance, prevent resin leakage, maintain separation between dilute and concentrate compartments, reduce force imbalance on the membranes, prevent flow channeling, and facilitate sealing between compartments. Beh et al. already teaches a redox shuttle assisted electrodialytic stack having membrane-bounded salinate and desalinate flow paths and an applied voltage. Datta teaches that porous ion-exchange resin wafers positioned between ion-exchange membranes improve electrodeionization performance and expressly teaches using wafers in both dilute and concentrate compartments, including a stated reason for using a wafer in the concentrating compartment. Lin further teaches known resin-wafer structures to Beh’s known redox shuttle assisted electrodialytic stack would have been the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 2, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein each respective mixture comprises polyethylene binder in an amount of 10 wt.-%, based on a total weight of the respective mixture (Datta col. 5 “eight ratios of the resin to binder range from 20:1 to 3:1” which encompasses 9:1 resin/other solids to binder relationship which is at or near 10 wt.-%, based on a total weight of the respective mixture).
Regarding claim 3, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the ion exchange resin comprises cation exchange resin beads and anion exchange resin beads (Datta claim 1 “anion-exchange entities and cation exchange entities” and specifically “strong acid cation exchange resin” and “strong base anion exchange resin” used in wafers).
Regarding claim 4, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein each respective mixture comprises the ion exchange resin in an amount of 80 wt.-% or less (Lin claim 2 “anion and/or cation exchange moieties are present in the range of from about 30% to about 75% by weight”), based on a total weight of the respective mixture.
Regarding claim 5, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein each respective mixture comprises a pore-forming agent in an amount of 10 wt.-%, based on a total weight of the respective mixture (Lin teaches using removable water-soluble additives, such as sugar, as porosity-forming additives in resin wafers and teaches controlling the amount of such removable additive to control wafer porosity; selecting 10 wt.-% would have been an obvious routine optimization of a known result-effective variable, namely the amount of removable pore-forming additive used to obtain desired porosity and flow-through properties).
Regarding claim 8, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious 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 Datta and Lin 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 Datta and Lin 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 Datta and Lin discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, 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 12, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin 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 Datta and Lin 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 Datta and Lin discloses the electrodialytic stack of claim 1, wherein the redox shuttle loop comprises: a first redox stream separated from the concentrate stream by the first outer ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. "cathode chamber" and "salinate chamber" separated by outer ion exchange membrane in Fig. 1A-B); and a second redox stream separated from the dilute stream by the second outer ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. "anode chamber" and "desalinate chamber" separated by outer ion exchange membrane in Fig. 1A-B).
Regarding claim 15, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin 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 Datta and Lin discloses an ion transfer system (Beh et al. col. 10 line 7 "energy storage system") comprising: at least one ion transfer module comprising: a modular dilute inlet in fluid communication with a modular dilute outlet; and a modular concentrate inlet in fluid communication with a modular concentrate outlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A ports and modular cell stack arrangement); and at least one redox shuttle assisted electrodeionization stack comprising: a concentrate flow path comprising a concentrate inlet in fluid communication with a concentrate outlet, the concentrate flow path bounded by a central ion exchange membrane and a first outer ion exchange membrane of a different type than the central ion exchange membrane, wherein a concentrate stream moves through the concentrate flow path (Beh et al. Fig. 3A and related salinated stream disclosure); a dilute flow path comprising a dilute inlet in fluid communication with a dilute outlet, the dilute flow path bounded by the central ion exchange membrane and a second outer ion exchange membrane of a different type than the central ion exchange membrane, wherein a dilute stream moves through the dilute flow path (Beh et al. Fig. 3A and related desalinated stream disclosure); a feed flow path in fluid communication with at least one of the concentrate inlet and the dilute inlet, the feed flow path fluidly couplable to at least one of the concentrate outlet, the dilute outlet, the modular dilute outlet, and the modular concentrate outlet (Beh et al. Fig. 3A and switching/flow arrangement); a redox shuttle loop separated from the concentrate stream by the first outer ion exchange membrane, the redox shuttle loop separated from the dilute stream by the second outer ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. redox shuttle loop and electrode compartments separated by ion exchange membranes); a first electrode and a second electrode operable to apply a voltage across the at least one redox shuttle assisted electrodeionization stack (Beh et al. electrodes/anode/cathode); and at least one collection of ion exchange materials in each of the concentrate flow path and the dilute flow path, wherein the at least one collection of ion exchange materials: comprises a first packed bed located in the concentrate flow path and a second packed bed located in the dilute flow path, each of the first packed bed and the second packed bed being disposed between and separate from the ion exchange membranes, and occupying the flow path in which the packed bed is located as a free-standing bed of discrete ion exchange particles (Datta claim 1/col. 4 teaches porous ion-exchange wafer material positioned intermediate cation and anion exchange membranes; Datta Example 3 teaching “Four pairs of dilute and concentrate compartments packed with resin wafers”; Datta col. 10 teaching the concentrating compartment can be fitted with a wafer to avoid force imbalance, prevent flow channeling, and facilitate sealing); wherein each of the first packed bed and the second packed bed comprises ion exchange materials formed from a respective mixture comprising ion exchange resin, polyethylene binder, and a pore-forming agent (Lin col. 3 teaching resin wafer composition/porosity control including resin, thermoplastic binder, and removable pore-forming additive); and wherein the first packed bed migrates ions between the central ion exchange membrane and the first outer ion exchange membrane, and the second packed bed migrates ions between the central ion exchange membrane and the second outer ion exchange membrane, while the redox shuttle loop is separated from the concentrate stream and the dilute stream by the first and second outer ion exchange membranes (Datta col. 10 teaching anions and cations are pulled from the ion-exchange resin particles under applied electrical potential).
Regarding claim 17, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin 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, e.g., cell stack 320b).
Regarding claim 18, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin 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 Datta and Lin 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 Datta and Lin 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] and Datta expressly relates to an “electrodeionization device”).
Regarding claim 21, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious 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 and the central ion exchange membrane (Beh et al. Fig. 3A #310 "third ion exchange membrane" col. 11 line 51); circulating a redox shuttle loop around the first and second outer ion exchange membranes (Beh et al. redox shuttle 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 the first outer ion exchange membrane via a first packed bed located in the concentrate flow path, and migrating ions between the central ion exchange membrane and the second outer ion exchange membrane via a second packed bed located in the dilute flow path, wherein each of the first packed bed and the second packed bed is disposed between and separate from the ion exchange membranes, and occupies the flow path in which the packed bed is located as a freestanding bed of discrete ion exchange particles, and wherein each of the first packed bed and the second packed bed comprises ion exchange materials formed from a respective mixture comprising ion exchange resin, polyethylene binder, and a pore-forming agent (Datta teaching an EDI stack having porous ion-exchange wafers positioned between cation and anion exchange membranes; Datta Example 3 teaching “Four pairs of dilute and concentrate compartments packed with resin wafers”; Datta col. 10 teaching the concentrating compartment can be fitted with a wafer to avoid force imbalance, prevent flow channeling, and facilitate sealing; Datta col. 10 teaching anions and cations are pulled from the ion-exchange resin particles under applied electrical potential and Lin col. 3 teaching resin wafer composition/porosity control including resin, thermoplastic binder, and removable pore-forming additive).
Regarding claim 22, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 21, wherein each respective mixture comprises polyethylene binder in an amount of 10 wt.-%, based on a total weight of the respective mixture (Datta col. 2 and examples teach using polyethylene as a binder and col. 5 “ratios of the resin to binder range from 20:1 to 3:1” which encompasses 9:1 resin/other solids to binder relationship which is at or near 10 wt.-%, based on a total weight of the respective mixture; 10 wt.-% polyethylene binder is a routinely optimized binder amount within the known binder range for porous ion-exchange resin wafers).
Regarding claim 23, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 21, wherein the ion exchange resin comprises cation exchange resin beads and anion exchange resin beads (Datta claim 1 “anion-exchange entities and cation exchange entities” and specifically “strong acid cation exchange resin” and “strong base anion exchange resin” used in wafers).
Regarding claim 24, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 21, wherein each respective mixture comprises ion exchange resin in an amount of 80 wt.-% or less, based on a total weight of the respective mixture (Lin claim 2 “anion and/or cation exchange moieties are present in the range of from about 30% to about 75% by weight”).
Regarding claim 25, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 21, wherein each respective mixture comprises a pore-forming agent in an amount of 10 wt.-%, based on a total weight of the respective mixture (Lin teaches using removable water-soluble additives, such as sugar, as porosity-forming additives in resin wafers and teaches controlling the amount of such removable additive to control wafer porosity; selecting 10 wt.-% would have been an obvious routine optimization of a known result-effective variable, namely the amount of removable pore-forming additive used to obtain desired porosity and flow-through properties).
Regarding claim 27, Beh et al. in view of Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious 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 Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious 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 Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious 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 Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious 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 Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious 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 Datta and Lin discloses or renders obvious 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).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beh et al. (US-10821395-B2) in view of Banerjee (WO-9516730-A1), and further in view of Lin '247 (US-9731247-B2).
Regarding claim 33, 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 moves through the dilute flow path (Beh et al. "Desalinate stream" #132 Fig. 1A-B); 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) and a first electrode and a second electrode operable to apply a voltage across the electrodialytic stack (Beh et al. col. 6 "cathode" and “anode”).
Beh et al. does not disclose 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, wherein at least one membrane comprises a porous support membrane and an ionomer membrane coating applied to the porous support membrane, and wherein the membrane has an overall thickness between 50 microns and 120 microns.
Banerjee teaches reinforced ion-exchange membranes. Banerjee abstract discloses “a composite fluorinated ion exchange membrane” comprising “a continuous fluorinated ion exchange polymer film” applied to “a porous reinforcing substrate” and teaches that the substrate is preferably a polyolefin such as polyethylene. Banerjee p. 6 further teaches that the membrane comprises “a substantially nonporous fluorinated ion exchange polymer film attached on one or both sides to a substantially porous reinforcing substrate” and that one or both sides of the polymer film may be bonded to a substrate. Banerjee p. 7 also teaches that the substrate provides mechanical support while the ion exchange layer provides ion transport, stating that the substrate “provides a support preventing the relatively thin ion exchange membrane from being ruptured or damaged” and “does not greatly reduce the effective cross section of the membrane for ionic conduction”. Banerjee p. 14 further teaches that an ion exchange resin layer is preferably thin, “less than about 250 µm, preferably less than 100 µm”.
Lin ‘247 is directed to ion exchange membranes for electrodialysis and teaches a microporous membrane support and ion transferring polymer formed in the porous support. Lin claim 1 teaches an “ion exchange membrane” comprising “a microporous membrane support having a porous first side and a porous second side” and “a crosslinked ion transferring polymer filling said porous structure”. Lin claim 2 also teaches that the thickness of the porous support can be “greater than about 55 microns and less than about 155 microns” which overlaps the claimed 50-120 micron range, and further teaches low-resistance, high permselectivity ion exchange membranes useful in electrodialysis, confirming that porous-supported ion-exchange membranes in the claimed thickness range were known and desirable for electrodialysis applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the porous-supported ionomer/ion-exchange membrane constructions taught by Banerjee and/or Lin as the ion exchange membranes in Beh et al.’s redox shuttle assisted dialytic stack. Beh et al. already requires ion exchange membranes separating redox shuttle streams from salinate and desalinate process streams, and Banerjee and Lin teach known reinforced/composite ion exchange membrane constructions having porous supports and ionomer or ion-transfer polymer materials for improving mechanical strength while maintaining low resistance and ion transport. Selecting a membrane thickness within the overlapping or preferred thin-membrane ranges taught by Banerjee and Lin would have been an obvious matter of routine design optimization because membrane thickness was known to affect ionic resistance, permselectivity, and mechanical durability. The proposed combination merely uses known porous-supported ion-exchange membrane structures in Beh’s electrodialytic stack for their established purpose as mechanically robust, low-resistance ion exchange membranes.
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 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
Prosecution Insights