DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
The Amendment filed on 08 June 2023 has been entered; claims 1-3, 5, 6, 16-19, 27, 33-35, 37-43, 45, 48, 50-52, 56, 58, 60, 114, 115, and 117-121 remain pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species: activated carbon bed in the reply filed on 04 September 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 38, 39, 60, and 121 are hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim 52 is 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.
With respect to claim 52, the limitation “low molecular weight hydroxyethyl starches” contains the limitation “low”, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low (molecular weight hydroxyethyl starches)” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation “low molecular weight hydroxyethyl starches” as being met by a teaching of limitation “hydroxyethyl starches”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 16-19, 27, 37, 40-43, 48, 114, 115, and 117-120 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent # 3515664) in view of Chen et al. (Langmuir, 2004, 20, 2233-2242) and Coillet et al. (U.S. Patent # 4234419), hereinafter “Johnson”, “Chen”, and “Coillet”.
With respect to claims 1-3, 5, 18, and 37, Johnson discloses a method of removing sodium and chloride ions (one or more ionic contaminants”) from an electrolyte (“an aqueous mixture”) (Fig. 5 embodiment relied upon, combines Figs. 2-4) comprising: a) flowing liquid electrolyte 40 comprising sodium and chloride ions (“a contaminated aqueous mixture comprising one or more ionic contaminants”) through an electrode stack 25 (“vessel”) comprising electrodes 22 and 24, each ion responsive material 34 (“capture bed”) absorbing a portion of the minerals in the electrolyte passing through conduit 14 (see Fig. 2 and Column 3, lines 1-11; Column 3, lines 17-29, which describes the electrode stack of Fig. 5), wherein the stack 25 (“vessel”) of electrodes 22 and 24 houses ion responsive material 34 (“a capture bed” and electrodes 22 and 24 in electrical contact with ion responsive material 34 (“the capture bed”) (Fig. 2; Column 3, lines 30-41); b) applying a current (and therefore a voltage) from a DC source to the electrodes 22 and 24 (wherein electrodes 22 and 24 could be anion responsive or cation responsive) that are in electrical contact with a plurality of ion responsive material 34 (“the capture bed”) (Column 3, lines 4-11; Column 4, lines 19-21; Column 4, lines 28-31), such that the one or more ionic contaminants is bound to the capture bed (described in detail for the Fig. 1 embodiment with one set of electrodes and one capture bed in Column 2, lines 32-41; Column 4, lines 41-50); c) flowing a weakly ionic solution (“aqueous wash liquid”) through the electrode stack 25 (“vessel”) (Fig. 5; Column 4, line 52 through Column 5, line 18), which incorporates an electrode stack 25; Fig. 5); and reversing the polarity of the current flow (and therefore the voltage, considered to be consistent with “modulating the voltage” applied to the electrode stack 25, such that the sodium and chloride ions (“one or more ionic contaminants”) bound to the capture bed is released from the capture bed and is washed from the capture bed via the aqueous wash liquid (Column 2, lines 54-63; Column 3, lines 11-15; Column 5, lines 11-17).
Johnson discloses precipitation of sodium chloride salt from the aqueous wash liquid (“weakly ionic solution” disclosed in Column 5, lines 52-69), wherein the sodium and chloride recombine to from the salt (“aggregate contaminant phase”) (Column 2, lines 57-63), wherein the salt is flushed out (“removing the aggregate contaminant phase from the aqueous wash liquid (Column 2, lines 57-63), removed by separator 20 in Fig. 2 or 36 in Figs. 3, 4, but does not specifically teach that the counter ion is embodied as claimed.
Coillet teaches an aqueous solution comprising calcium ions (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add calcium ions as counter ions in the aqueous solution because Coillet teaches that removal of inorganic salts from feed water can comprise a variety of anions to be removed, including sulfate and phosphate in addition to chloride (Column 2, lines 30-33), and that calcium ions can be added to ion exchange regenerant streams to precipitate calcium salts of sulfate and phosphate while still concentrating sodium and chloride (Abstract; Column 1, lines 54-62), the ions removed by the demineralization process of Johnson. The ordinary artisan would have found it an advantageous to remove additional ions from water sources, while still being able to regenerate the ion exchange units.
Johnson teaches carbon, but not specifically activated carbon.
Chen teaches activated carbon having surface area of about 636 m2/g (see Abstract; Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the carbon of Johnson with the activated carbon of Chen because Johnson discloses the same or similar procedure of acid treatment of carbon to achieve acidic groups including carboxylic/carboxylate and nitrate on the carbon for adsorption of sodium (metal) ions as Chen (see Johnson: Column 3, lines 59-69, and see Chen: Page 2234, right column, last paragraph), and in order to gain the advantage of a porous, high surface area carbon with a large number of carboxyl and nitrate groups, improving the total acidity capacity and metal sorption (see Chen: Tables 2, 5, and the Conclusions Section on Page 2242).
With respect to claim 6, Johnson teaches configuring separator 36 as a stationary phase that has the same ion exchange capability to match that of the ion responsive material 34 (Column 3, lines 7).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Johnson does not specifically teach binding of ionic complexing species as claimed; however, does teach that the water to be treated may already comprise calcium (see Johnson: Column 2, lines 30-36). It is submitted that the calcium ions may also be captured; and begin to form ionic complexing species with anions to be removed as they both attach to the ion exchange media. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that feed water could for similar ion exchange processes could contain other cations to remove aside from sodium as taught by Johnson; therefore, differing ionic complex species may form over the ion exchange process.
With respect to claim 19, Johnson discloses that separator 20 (and 36) are adjacent the sets of electrodes 22, 24 (Fig. 2; Column 2, lines 1-2), sandwiching the electrodes.
With respect to claim 27, Johnson discloses that stack 25 comprises a plurality of ion responsive material 34/capture beds separated by separators 20, wherein all capture beds are in electrical contact the first and second electrodes (Column 2, lines 1-17; Fig. 2).
With respect to claims 40, 41, and 43, Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet discloses that the capture beds comprise ion responsive material 34, composed of carbon granules or fibers, coated with ion exchange polymer resin comprising an acidic group from acrylic acid, or by obtaining acidic groups from treatment nitric acid (see Johnson: Column 3, lines 41-69, and see right column, last paragraph of Page 2234 of Chen and Page 2242: Conclusions section of Chen).
Regarding claim 42, it is submitted that the activated carbon capture bed of Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet must necessarily have the recited conductivity, assuming support for the range of conductivity for Applicant’s elected Species of activated carbon, and because claim 42 originally depended from any one of the preceding claims, including 37 and 41, which are met as explained above.
With respect to claim 48, Johnson teaches that the electrode stack 25 is in the form of a column (Fig. 2).
With respect to claims 114, 115, 117, and 118, Johnson discloses a method of regenerating a capture bed, comprising providing the electrode stack comprising the capture beds 34 , flowing a weakly ionic solution (“aqueous wash liquid”) through the electrode stack 25 (“vessel”) (Fig. 5; Column 4, line 52 through Column 5, line 18), which incorporates an electrode stack 25; Fig. 5); and reversing the polarity of the current flow (and therefore the voltage, considered to be consistent with “modulating the voltage” applied to the electrode stack 25, such that the sodium and chloride ions (“one or more ionic contaminants”). Johnson discloses that the aqueous wash liquid can comprise both sodium and chloride ions (weaker ionic solution disclosed in Column 5, lines 52-69), wherein the sodium and chloride recombine to from the salt (“aggregate contaminant phase”) (Column 2, lines 57-63), wherein the (precipitated) salt is flushed out (“removing the aggregate contaminant phase from the aqueous wash liquid (Column 2, lines 57-63), removed by separator 20 in Fig. 2 or 36 in Figs. 3, 4).
Johnson discloses precipitation of sodium chloride salt from the aqueous wash liquid (“weaker ionic solution” disclosed in Column 5, lines 52-69), wherein the sodium and chloride recombine to from the salt (“aggregate contaminant phase”) (Column 2, lines 57-63), wherein the salt is flushed out (“removing the aggregate contaminant phase from the aqueous wash liquid (Column 2, lines 57-63), removed by separator 20 in Fig. 2 or 36 in Figs. 3, 4, but does not specifically teach that the counter ion is embodied as claimed.
Johnson teaches carbon, but not specifically activated carbon.
Coillet teaches an aqueous solution comprising calcium ions (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add calcium ions as counter ions in the aqueous solution because Coillet teaches that removal of inorganic salts from feed water can comprise a variety of anions to be removed, including sulfate and phosphate in addition to chloride (Column 2, lines 30-33), and that calcium ions can be added to ion exchange regenerant streams to precipitate calcium salts of sulfate and phosphate while still concentrating sodium and chloride (Abstract; Column 1, lines 54-62), the ions removed by the demineralization process of Johnson. The ordinary artisan would have found it an advantageous to remove additional ions from water sources, while still being able to regenerate the ion exchange units.
Chen teaches activated carbon having surface area of about 636 m2/g (see Abstract; Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the carbon of Johnson with the activated carbon of Chen because Johnson discloses the same or similar procedure of acid treatment of carbon to achieve acidic groups including carboxylate and nitrate on the carbon for adsorption of sodium (metal) ions as Chen (see Johnson: Column 3, lines 59-69, and see Chen: Page 2234, right column, last paragraph), and in order to gain the advantage of a porous, high surface area carbon with a large number of carboxyl and nitrate groups, improving the total acidity capacity and metal sorption (see Chen: Tables 2, 5, and the Conclusions Section on Page 2242).
With respect to claim 119, Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet teaches adjusting the pH of the regenerant stream (see Coillet: Column 5, lines 10-50).
With respect to claim 120, Johnson teaches configuring separator 36 as a stationary phase that has the same ion exchange capability to match that of the ion responsive material 34 (see Johnson: Column 3, lines 7).
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent # 3515664) in view of Chen et al. (Langmuir, 2004, 20, 2233-2242) and Coillet et al. (U.S. Patent # 4234419) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Legg et al. (AU 2019314762 B2), hereinafter, “Johnson”, “Chen”, “Coillet”, and “Legg”.
With respect to claims 29-32, Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet does not specifically teach that the ionic contaminant is embodied as claimed.
Legg discloses a method of removing perfluoroalkyl substances, including perfluorooctanoate and perfluorooctanesulfonate (Abstract; Paragraphs [0006, 0032, 0038]) using activated carbon as the sorbent material.
It would It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet in order to gain the advantage of removing PFAS from water as taught by Legg, disclosed as persistent chemicals in the environment (see Paragraph [0003]). It is further submitted that Legg also teaches regeneration of the activated carbon media (Paragraph [0040]), making it possible to use same system to remove PFAS, which have a negative effect on wildlife and humans (Page 2, second full paragraph).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent # 3513664) in view of Chen et al. (Langmuir, 2004, 20, 2233-2242) and Coillet et al. (U.S. Patent # 4234419) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2008/0035569), hereinafter, “Johnson”, “Chen”, “Coillet”, and “Wilder”.
With respect to claim 45, Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet does not specifically teach a binder as claimed.
Wilder teaches a starch binder (Paragraph [0024]).
It would It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the binder disclosed by Wilder in the activated carbon particles within the capture bed of Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet, because Wilder teaches that inclusion of a binder holds the activated carbon particles together, preventing segregation associated with particle size or weight (Paragraph [0024]).
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent # 3513664) in view of Chen et al. (Langmuir, 2004, 20, 2233-2242) and Coillet et al. (U.S. Patent # 4234419) as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by He et al. (Frontiers in Marine Science, 2020, 7, 1-11), hereinafter, “Johnson”, “Chen”, “Coillet”, and “He”.
With respect to claim 50, Johnson teaches contact of flow from the reservoir of untreated raw electrolyte in a stead state operation during the desalination process of sea water. It is submitted that this could also be considered as a “washing” step after a certain amount of desalination has taken place, prior to regeneration of carbon, as seawater comprises calcium as a major cation (see He: Abstract and first paragraph of the Introduction).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent # 3513664) in view of Chen et al. (Langmuir, 2004, 20, 2233-2242) and Coillet et al. (U.S. Patent # 4234419) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of David et al. (U.S. Patent # 3905903), hereinafter, “Johnson”, “Chen”, “Coillet”, and “David”.
With respect to claim 51, Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet does not specifically teach a C1-C5 alcohol as claimed.
David teaches a methanol regenerant solution (Column 6, lines 11-18), which is also an “untreated” contaminated mixture.
It would It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to employ the alcohol-containing regenerant of David because David teaches that it is known to employ alcohol-containing regenerant solutions in demineralization processes. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent # 3513664) in view of Chen et al. (Langmuir, 2004, 20, 2233-2242) and Coillet et al. (U.S. Patent # 4234419) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (Desalination, 2014, 352, 181-189) or Salchi et al. (Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4), 575-585), hereinafter, “Johnson”, “Chen”, “Coillet”, “Hwang”, and “Salchi”.
With respect to claim 52, Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet does not specifically teach an antifreeze agent as claimed.
Hwang teaches addition of polyethylene glycol (Abstract; Section 1, last paragraph), to a desalination membrane-forming solution (see Section 2.2), while Salchi teaches activated carbon coated with polyethylene glycol (Abstract).
It would It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add polyethylene glycol to the activated carbon sorbent of Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet because Hwang teaches that the membrane is used in desalination processes, similar to the process of Johnson, and because Hwang teaches that the addition of polyethylene glycol to the membrane improves flux recovery rate after backwashing (similar to the aqueous wash solution of Johnson to regenerate the carbon granules). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to add the polyethylene oxide of coating of Salchi to the activated carbon of Johnson in order to improve adsorption performance (see Abstract).
Claims 56 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent # 3513664) in view of Chen et al. (Langmuir, 2004, 20, 2233-2242) and Coillet et al. (U.S. Patent # 4234419) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vaughn et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0284673), hereinafter, “Johnson”, “Chen”, “Coillet”, and “Vaughn”.
With respect to claims 56 and 58, Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet does not specifically teach that the aqueous wash solution comprises one or more additives as claimed, or rinsing with a rinse liquid comprising the one or more additives recited in claim 58.
Vaughn teaches washing activated carbon with acetic acid or citric acid (Paragraphs [0009, 0019]).
It would It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add citric or acetic acid washing of activated carbon as taught by Vaughn to the activated carbon of Johnson in view of Chen and Coillet in order to achieve removal of salts from the activated carbon (Paragraph [0006]) and to avoid leaching of metals from activated carbon (Paragraph [0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 23 December 2025