Detailed Action
This is a Non-Final Office action based on application 17/985,574 filed on 11 November 2022. The application is a Continuation-In-Part of US Application 16/252,443 filed 18 January 2019.
Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 1-6 are withdrawn, and claims 7-20 have been fully considered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-6, drawn to a method of cleaning an electrocoagulation device, classified in C02F 2303/14-16.
II. Claims 7-20, drawn to an electrocoagulation device comprising a controller configured to enact a cleaning protocol, classified in C02F 1/463.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the method could be carried out by actuating fluid streams using hand-controlled valves, rather than by placing the plumbing under the control of a digital controller, and, the apparatus could be used to practice a different method, such as an electrocoagulation method in which the cleansing cycle is simply not carried out.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired separate statuses in the art in view of their different statutory categories;
the inventions have acquired separate statuses in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries;
the prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention;
and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues (i.e., under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and/or 112).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Applicant’s attorney Brett Bornsen on 6 January 2026, Examiner presented the above restriction requirement and invited oral election. Bornsen left a voicemail with Examiner the following day, in which a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 7-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The present application is a continuation-in-part which claims priority to parent application 16/252,443 filed 18 January 2019; and, the parent application in turn claims priority to provisional application 62/619,682 filed 19 January 2018. However, Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 16/252,443 and Provisional Application 62/619,682 filed 19 January 2018, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, the following features are not supported in either the parent application or the provisional application:
wherein the acid comprises hydrochloric acid, as recited in claims 9 and 18;
wherein the time interval at which the controller is configured to initiate the cleaning cycle is in a range of from 6 to 12 hours, as recited in claim 11; and,
wherein the flush bottom port comprises a first and second flush bottom port, as recited in claim 13.
Claims 9, 11, 13, and 18 therefore have a priority date of 11 November 2022.
The feature of a controller configured to initiate a cleaning cycle comprising certain steps, recited in independent claims 7 and 16, is supported in application 16/252,443, but is not supported in provisional application 62/619,682. Claims 7 and 16, and all of their dependents apart from claims 9, 11, 13, and 18 as noted above, therefore have a priority date of 18 January 2019.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “Koh” (US 2020/0095149 A1 to Koh et al).
Regarding claim 7, Koh teaches a system comprising:
an Electrocoagulation (EC) unit (para [0011], “an electrocoagulation unit”) comprising:
a reaction tank formed from a non-conductive material (para [0028]-[0030], “As shown in FIGS. 2A-C, the electrocoagulation unit (102) includes a nonconductive outer shell (1022) having an interior space and a top rim (103) ... In one embodiment, the nonconductive outer shell (1022) is made up of polypropylene material”);
charge plates and intermediate plates disposed within the reaction tank (figure 2A-C; para [0029]-[0030], “a plurality of electrodes (402) that are vertically arranged in parallel ... the plurality of electrodes (402) may include ferrous/iron/aluminium plates”);
and a flush bottom port disposed at a lowest portion of the reaction tank in a gravity flow direction (as seen in figures 2B and 2C, at the lowest point of the reaction tank there is a manifold comprising a plurality of flush bottom ports 1024);
an inlet tank containing a wastewater (figure 1, wastewater tank 104; para [0027]) fluidly coupled to the flush bottom port (figure 1, wastewater tank 104 is fluidly coupled to electrocoagulation reactor 102 via valve 107; figure 2B-2C, valve 107 couples to EC unit 102 at the flush bottom ports 1024);
a cleansing tank containing a cleansing solution fluidly coupled to the flush bottom port (para [0037], “electrocoagulation cleaning unit (148) includes an acid cleaning pump (158) that ... pumps cleaning chemicals from an EC chemical storage tank (160) to the electrocoagulation unit (102) through the acid inlet valve (154)”; as seen in figure 1, 2B, and 5, acid inlet valve is fluidly coupled to the manifold of flush bottom ports 1024); and
a controller configured to initiate a cleaning cycle for the EC unit (para [0036], “electrocoagulation cleaning unit (148) is electrically connected to the control unit”) by:
stopping a flow of the wastewater into the flush bottom port from the inlet tank and draining the wastewater from the reaction tank through the flush bottom port to the inlet tank (para [0036], “The control unit opens the first drain valve (150) to drain the waste water that is remaining in the electrocoagulation unit (102) to the collection tank (104) for cleaning when the first inlet valve(107) is in closed position”);
filling the reaction tank, through the flush bottom port with the cleansing solution from the cleansing tank, to at least an uppermost plate level of the charge plates and the intermediate plates (para [0037], “the control unit opens the acid inlet valve (154) to provide acid to remove all debris present in between the plurality of electrodes (402) ... the acid cleaning pump (158) automatically pumps cleaning chemicals from an EC chemical storage tank (160) to the electrocoagulation unit (102) through the acid inlet valve (154)”; per para [0030], when waste water is being treated, it contacts the plate electrodes 402 “from a bottom of the electrode assembly (400) to a top of the electrode assembly (400)”, therefore, Koh’s teaching that the cleansing acid solution cleans all debris in the electrode assembly necessarily implies that the cleansing solution level is at least to the uppermost level of the electrode plates);
containing the cleansing solution in the reaction tank for a threshold time (para [0037], “The acid is soaked inside the electrocoagulation unit(102) for a predetermined time period to remove the debris and metal oxides present in between the plurality of electrodes (402) when the acid inlet valve (154) and the acid outlet valve (156) are in closed position”); and
draining the cleansing solution from the reaction tank through the flush bottom port to the cleansing tank after the threshold time (para [0038], “control unit automatically opens the acid outlet valve (156) to drain the acids after cleaning to the EC chemical storage tank (160) through a cleaning outlet (161) at a predetermined time interval”; as shown in figure 2B, the fluidic coupling between valve 156 and the reaction tank interior is via the flush bottom ports 1024).
Regarding claim 8, Koh teaches the system of claim 7 and further teaches wherein the cleansing solution comprises an acid (para [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Koh teaches the system of claim 7 wherein: the controller is configured to initiate the cleaning cycle periodically (para [0036], “electrocoagulation cleaning unit (148) that automatically cleans the electrocoagulation unit (102) at predefined time intervals”).
Regarding claim 12, Koh teaches the system of claim 7 wherein: the reaction tank further comprises an overflow port through a side wall of the reaction tank between a water level of the EC unit and the uppermost plate level (para [0029] and figure 2, the partition wall 109 is a side wall of electrode reaction chamber 1401, and water flows over the partition 109 into outlet chamber 1402. The space above partition 109 through which water is flowing is therefore an overflow port through a side wall of the electrode chamber, and is higher than the top of the electrode plates and lower than the water level); and the controller is configured to produce a flow of the cleansing solution through the flush bottom port that flows out of the overflow port during the cleaning cycle (para [0038], a portion of the cleansing solution flows out of the reaction tank via drain valve 150; figure 2A-C, drain valve 150 is connected to outlet chamber 1402 which receives water that is flowing out of the overflow port).
Regarding claim 13, Koh teaches the system of claim 7 wherein the flush bottom port disposed at the lowest portion of the reaction tank in the gravity flow direction comprises: a first flush bottom port fluidly coupled to the inlet tank; and a second flush bottom port fluidly coupled to the cleansing tank (as seen in figure 2C, of the flush bottom ports 1024 disposed at the lowest portion of the reaction tank in the gravity flow direction, there are four, and all of them are coupled to both the inlet tank and the cleansing tank).
Regarding claim 16, Koh teaches a system comprising:
an Electrocoagulation (EC) unit (para [0011], “an electrocoagulation unit”) comprising:
a reaction tank (figures 2A-2B) comprising an upper section and a lower section (exploded view in figure 2C shows that the reaction tank comprises an upper section (1022) and a lower section (the section to which flush bottom ports 1024 are connected)), formed from a non-conductive material (para [0028]-[0030], “As shown in FIGS. 2A-C, the electrocoagulation unit (102) includes a nonconductive outer shell (1022) having an interior space and a top rim (103) ... In one embodiment, the nonconductive outer shell (1022) is made up of polypropylene material”);
charge plates and intermediate plates disposed within the upper section of the reaction tank (para [0029]-[0030], “a plurality of electrodes (402) that are vertically arranged in parallel ... the plurality of electrodes (402) may include ferrous/iron/aluminium plates”; figure 2A shows the electrode plates 402 are disposed in the upper section of the reaction tank);
wherein the lower section is funnel-shaped with a flush bottom port disposed at a lowest portion of the reaction tank in a gravity flow direction (as seen in figures 2B and 2C, the lower section is funnel shaped, and at the lowest point of the reaction tank there is a manifold comprising a plurality of flush bottom ports 1024);
an inlet tank containing a wastewater (figure 1, wastewater tank 104; para [0027]) fluidly coupled to the flush bottom port (figure 1, wastewater tank 104 is fluidly coupled to electrocoagulation reactor 102 via valve 107; figure 2B-2C, valve 107 couples to EC unit 102 at the flush bottom ports 1024);
a cleansing tank containing a cleansing solution fluidly coupled to the flush bottom port (para [0037], “electrocoagulation cleaning unit (148) includes an acid cleaning pump (158) that ... pumps cleaning chemicals from an EC chemical storage tank (160) to the electrocoagulation unit (102) through the acid inlet valve (154)”; as seen in figure 1, 2B, and 5, acid inlet valve is fluidly coupled to the manifold of flush bottom ports 1024); and
a controller configured to initiate a cleaning cycle for the EC unit (para [0036], “electrocoagulation cleaning unit (148) is electrically connected to the control unit”) by:
stopping a flow of the wastewater into the flush bottom port from the inlet tank and draining the wastewater from the reaction tank through the flush bottom port to the inlet tank (para [0036], “The control unit opens the first drain valve (150) to drain the waste water that is remaining in the electrocoagulation unit (102) to the collection tank (104) for cleaning when the first inlet valve(107) is in closed position”);
filling the reaction tank, through the flush bottom port with the cleansing solution from the cleansing tank, to at least an uppermost plate level of the charge plates and the intermediate plates (para [0037], “the control unit opens the acid inlet valve (154) to provide acid to remove all debris present in between the plurality of electrodes (402) ... the acid cleaning pump (158) automatically pumps cleaning chemicals from an EC chemical storage tank (160) to the electrocoagulation unit (102) through the acid inlet valve (154)”; per para [0030], when waste water is being treated, it contacts the plate electrodes 402 “from a bottom of the electrode assembly (400) to a top of the electrode assembly (400)”, therefore, Koh’s teaching that the cleansing acid solution cleans all debris in the electrode assembly necessarily implies that the cleansing solution level is at least to the uppermost level of the electrode plates);
containing the cleansing solution in the reaction tank for a threshold time (para [0037], “The acid is soaked inside the electrocoagulation unit(102) for a predetermined time period to remove the debris and metal oxides present in between the plurality of electrodes (402) when the acid inlet valve (154) and the acid outlet valve (156) are in closed position”); and
draining the cleansing solution from the reaction tank through the flush bottom port to the cleansing tank after the threshold time (para [0038], “control unit automatically opens the acid outlet valve (156) to drain the acids after cleaning to the EC chemical storage tank (160) through a cleaning outlet (161) at a predetermined time interval”; as shown in figure 2B, the fluidic coupling between valve 156 and the reaction tank interior is via the flush bottom ports 1024).
Regarding claim 17, Koh teaches the system of claim 16 and further teaches the cleansing solution comprises an acid (para [0037]).
Regarding claim 19, Koh teaches the system of claim 16 wherein: the controller is configured to initiate the cleaning cycle periodically (para [0036], “electrocoagulation cleaning unit (148) that automatically cleans the electrocoagulation unit (102) at predefined time intervals”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh as applied to claims 7 and 16 above, and further in view of “Gale” (US 4,036,726 A to Gale et al).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Koh teaches the systems of claims 7 and 16 respectively, wherein the cleansing solution comprises an acid (para [0037]). However, Koh is silent as to which particular acid(s) are used.
Gale is similarly directed to a system comprising an electrocoagulation unit (col 2 ln 26-54, a system which employs corrosion of an iron anode to release iron ions into wastewater and thereby coagulate contaminants in the water, i.e. an electrocoagulation unit) comprising a reaction tank formed from a non-conductive material (col 6 ln 32-35, “a housing of electrically insulating and inert material”) and charge plates and intermediate plates of ferrous material disposed within the reaction tank (figures 5-8, end electrodes 134, 136, and intermediate electrodes 158; col 2 ln 59-65, electrode plates are preferably made of iron-based material); and a cleansing solution tank fluidly coupled to the reaction tank (figure 1-4, cleansing tank 40).
Gale teaches periodically carrying out a cleansing cycle on the electrocoagulation unit, the cleansing cycle comprising:
(a) halting wastewater flow into the reaction tank and draining the wastewater out of the reaction tank (figure 2; col 4 ln 45 – col 5 ln 2);
(b) filling the reaction tank with cleansing solution from the cleansing solution tank and contacting the cleansing solution with the interior of the reaction tank for a threshold time (col 5 ln 2-40; figure 3);
(c) draining the cleansing solution from the reaction tank to the cleansing tank after the threshold time (col 5 ln 40-52; figure 4).
Gale teaches that a suitable cleansing solution for this purpose is one that comprises hydrochloric acid (col 5 ln 22-27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when implementing the system of Koh, to select hydrochloric acid as the cleansing solution acid, based on Gale’s teaching that hydrochloric acid is suitable for Koh’s intended purpose of cleaning ferrous electrodes in an electrocoagulation device. The selection of a known material based on its art-recognized suitability for the intended purpose is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Koh teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the controller initiates the cleaning cycle “at predefined time intervals” (para [0036]). However, Koh is silent as to how long the predetermined time interval is.
Gale is similarly directed to a system comprising an electrocoagulation unit (col 2 ln 26-54, a system which employs corrosion of an iron anode to release iron ions into wastewater and thereby coagulate contaminants in the water, i.e. an electrocoagulation unit) comprising a reaction tank formed from a non-conductive material (col 6 ln 32-35, “a housing of electrically insulating and inert material”) and charge plates and intermediate plates of ferrous material disposed within the reaction tank (figures 5-8, end electrodes 134, 136, and intermediate electrodes 158; col 2 ln 59-65, electrode plates are preferably made of iron-based material); and a cleansing solution tank fluidly coupled to the reaction tank (figure 1-4, cleansing tank 40).
Gale teaches periodically carrying out a cleansing cycle on the electrocoagulation unit, the cleansing cycle comprising:
(a) halting wastewater flow into the reaction tank and draining the wastewater out of the reaction tank (figure 2; col 4 ln 45 – col 5 ln 2);
(b) filling the reaction tank with cleansing solution from the cleansing solution tank and contacting the cleansing solution with the interior of the reaction tank for a threshold time (col 5 ln 2-40; figure 3);
(c) draining the cleansing solution from the reaction tank to the cleansing tank after the threshold time (col 5 ln 40-52; figure 4).
In an exemplary embodiment Gale performs their cleansing cycle once per day (col 5 ln 34-35), i.e. the cleansing cycle is began about 24 hours after the beginning of an operation cycle of the EC unit. However, Gale also teaches that if the electrocoagulation current is high, the electrodes may require more frequent cleaning, and the frequency of the cleaning cycle may be adjusted to multiple cleans per day as appropriate (col 5 ln 35-40). Note that a frequency of from 2 to 4 cleans per day would fall into the claimed range of wherein the time between the operation cycle and the cleaning cycle is between 6 and 12 hours.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when determining the predetermined time interval at which Koh’s system carries out its cleaning cycle, to select a suitable time based on guidance from Gale, who teaches that an appropriate range of cleaning frequencies is between one and several times per day, and the specific time interval between cleanings can be optimized within that range in response to the rate at which electrocoagulation current passes through the electrodes.
Claims 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh as applied to claims 7 and 16 above, and further in view of “Knieper” (US 6,238,546 B1 to Knieper et al).
Regarding claims 14-15, Koh teaches the system of claim 7, however, Koh’s disclosed reaction tank is a rectangular prism shape, and a bottom section of the reaction tank that includes the flush bottom port 1024 is shaped as a rectangular funnel (figure 2C). Koh does not teach that the reaction tank is cylindrical (as required by claim 14) or that a bottom section of the reaction tank, that includes the flush bottom port, is conical (as required by claim 15).
Knieper is similarly directed to an electrocoagulation unit having a reaction tank, and a plurality of vertical plate electrodes disposed within the reaction tank. In one embodiment (figures 1-6 and col 2 ln 34 – col 3 ln 20), Knieper’s reaction tank is a rectangular prism shape, and a bottom section of the reaction tank including a flush bottom port is a rectangular funnel shape (in figures 1-6, reaction chamber 20 is a rectangular shape, and lower portion 14 having flush bottom outlet 18 is a rectangular funnel shape; col 2 ln 46-61). In an alternative embodiment (figures 11-14 and col 7 ln 24 – col 8 ln 22), Knieper’s reaction tank is a cylindrical in shape and the bottom section of the reaction tank including a flush bottom port is conical in shape (figures 11-12, reaction chamber 20 is cylindrical and bottom portion 214 is conical).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Koh’s system using a cylindrical reaction tank with a conical bottom section, rather than a rectangular reaction tank with a rectangular funnel bottom section as depicted in Koh’s drawings, based on Knieper’s disclosure that either of these two reaction tank shapes is equivalently suitable for the intended purpose of electrocoagulation. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)].
Regarding claim 20, Koh teaches the system of claim 16, however, the bottom section of Koh’s reaction tank that includes the flush bottom port 1024 is shaped as a rectangular funnel (figure 2C). Koh does not teach that a bottom section of the reaction tank is conical as required by claim 20.
Knieper is similarly directed to an electrocoagulation unit having a reaction tank, and a plurality of vertical plate electrodes disposed within the reaction tank. In one embodiment (figures 1-6 and col 2 ln 34 – col 3 ln 20), Knieper’s reaction tank is a rectangular prism shape, and a bottom section of the reaction tank including a flush bottom port is a rectangular funnel shape (in figures 1-6, reaction chamber 20 is a rectangular shape, and lower portion 14 having flush bottom outlet 18 is a rectangular funnel shape; col 2 ln 46-61). In an alternative embodiment (figures 11-14 and col 7 ln 24 – col 8 ln 22), Knieper’s reaction tank is a cylindrical in shape and the bottom section of the reaction tank including a flush bottom port is conical in shape (figures 11-12, reaction chamber 20 is cylindrical and bottom portion 214 is conical).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Koh’s system using a cylindrical reaction tank with a conical bottom section, rather than a rectangular reaction tank with a rectangular funnel bottom section as depicted in Koh’s drawings, based on Knieper’s disclosure that either of these two reaction tank shapes is similarly suitable for the intended purpose of electrocoagulation. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 ET.
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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795