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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, in the clause beginning “a magnesium metering unit”, “different polarity” is vague and ambiguous as to whether the claim is comparing the electrode polarity with respect to a standard or reference polarity, or is comparing electrode polarity with respect to each other (hence, it is suggested that “different polarity” be amended to recite “differing polarity”, as would be supported by the translated Specification at page 14, lines 13-17 concerning “polarity reversals” and one of the electrodes being a “cathode”);
and in the clause beginning “wherein the magnesium metering unit”, the clause is also unclear and ambiguous as to the structural relationship or nexus between the magnesium metering unit and the flow channel (it is also suggested that the claim be amended by inserting “, being an entrance from the flow channel,” after “feed inlet (40)” in the clause to clarify such structural relationship, supported by figure 1A and the translated Specification at page 13, lines 20-24).
In each of claims 3, 4 and 12, it is unclear whether respective recitations of features of the at least one sacrificial anode pertain to each of the at least one sacrificial anode, or may pertain to only one of the one or more anodes, (hence, it is suggested that in each of claims 3, 4 and 12 “each of” be inserted after “wherein”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Independent claim 1 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art, including both the prior art formerly made of record and the newly cited prior art from the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 10/30/2025 and the References Cited Form 892 accompanying this Office Action., for reasons of record, concerning recitation of an electrolytic reactor inlet and adjoining flow channel, a magnesium metering unit comprising electrodes of different or differing polarity being arranged in such flow channel and comprising a mixing sedimentation unit being connected downstream of a magnesium metering unit, and
further comprising a distance between the magnesium metering unit and the mixing/sedimentation unit in a direction of flow being shorter than the flow channel.
The closest prior art continues to be deemed a combination of Egner et al PGPUBS Document US 2019/0161871, Morkovsky patent 5,928,493 and Oifman PGPUBS Document US 20110155564, previously recited against the originally examined claims, and cumulatively teaching a reactor system for phosphate-containing liquids, including there being one or more intervening units between an electrolytic reactor unit, means for metering additives, and a mixing/sedimentation unit, each unit separated by individual, separate flow lines,
However the combination of such prior art does not suggest the claimed combination of an electrolytic reactor inlet and adjoining flow channel, with a magnesium metering unit comprising electrodes of different or differing polarity being in such flow channel, combined with a downstream mixing/sedimentation unit, and with distance between magnesium metering unit and mixing/sedimentation unit being shorter than the flow channel.
Newly cited Patent publication WO 2012059464 and the accompanying English translation has also been considered, which describes an electrolytic reactor for phosphate removal from water or wastewater, however does not concern such reactor comprising or being in a system with a magnesium metering unit.
Claims 2-5 and 7-13 would also be distinguished and non-obvious in view of their dependency on claim 1, now deemed to be distinguished and non-obvious over all of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
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 are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Magali Slawski, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-270-3960.
The formal facsimile phone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
11/03/2025
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773