IMPROVED APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MEDIATION OF PFAS CONTAMINATION IN AN ENVIRONMENT

Application No. 18/015,769

• Filed: Jan 12, 2023
• Examiner: PARENT, ALEXANDER RENE
• Art Unit: 1795
• Tech Center: 1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
• Assignee: BIOLARGO, INC.
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office Action

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 .

Status of the Claims
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/05/2025. Claims 19-20 and 28-36 are pending in the current Office action. Claims 1-18 and 21-27 were cancelled by Applicant. Claim 19 was amended by Applicant. Claims 28-36 are new claims.

Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of group II, corresponding to claims 19-20 and 28-36 in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 and 21-27, now cancelled, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/02/2025.

Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 12/05/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, only some of the non-patent literature publications were provided with the IDS, and no copies of the cited foreign patent documents were provided.
The IDS filed 12/05/2025 further fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because complete citation information for each non-patent literature cited has not been provided. Specifically, publication dates and authorship information has not been provided in many cases. It is further noted that a foreign patent document was incorrectly listed as a US patent publication.
The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits except as indicated.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).

Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Specifically, p. 10 lines 25-26 includes an embedded hyperlink.
Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The specification is further objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the claims refer to “a second semipermeable membrane”, however this term is not found in the specification (see also rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), below), Applicant is requested to amend the claims and/or specification to use consistent terminology.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

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 29-30 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement due to the inclusion of new matter. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.

Regarding claims 29 and 30, claims 29 and 30 recite the limitations “the at least one semipermeable membrane is configured to restrict at least 80% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between the anode and the cathode” and “the at least one semipermeable membrane is configured to restrict at least 90% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between the anode and the cathode”, respectively. Support for these limitations could not be identified in the specification as originally filed.
Specifically, the specification, as filed on 01/21/2023, recites “restricting at least 95% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water” (p. 11 lines 5-15), but does not recite any other values for the restriction of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules by the membrane, and Applicant has not particularly pointed out a portion of the specification considered to provide support for these limitations.
As the claimed values i.e., “at least 80%” and “at least 90%”, are broader than the value recited in the specification i.e., “at least 95%”, the specification cannot be considered to provide support for the limitations as currently claimed (MPEP § 2163.05(III)). Claims 29 and 30 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement due to the inclusion of new matter not described in the specification as originally filed.

Regarding claim 35, claim 35 depends from claim 29, and therefore incorporates the new matter recited in claim 29. Claim 35 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons enumerated for claim 29.

Claims 19-20 and 28-36 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.

Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the limitation “an electrical voltage control system is in connection with the semipermeable membrane” in lines 14-15. It is unclear to which “semipermeable membrane” the phrase “the semipermeable membrane” in limitation refers.
Specifically, claim 19 recites “wherein the feed chamber is between and adjacent to the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber and the feed chamber is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber by at least one semipermeable membrane” in lines 12-14, emphasis added, which requires at least one semipermeable membrane disposed between the feed and anodic chamber and at least one semipermeable membrane disposed between the feed and cathodic electrode chamber. I.e., as currently drafted, claim 19 requires two distinct groups of semipermeable membranes, each of which comprise at least one semipermeable membrane.
It is therefore unclear whether the phrase “the semipermeable membrane” refers to any one of the semipermeable membranes, a particular semipermeable membrane(s), or each of the semipermeable membranes.
Claim 19 is therefore indefinite.

Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitation "the ground" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Specifically, claim 19, from which claim 20 depends, does not recite “a ground”. It is therefore unclear what component the term “the ground” refers to.
Furthermore, claim 20 depends from claim 19, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 19.
Claim 20 is therefore indefinite.

Regarding claim 28, claim 28 recites the limitation “the at least one semipermeable membrane” in lines 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, and 8-9. It is unclear to which group of “at least one semipermeable membrane” this limitation refers. Specifically, as described above, claim 19 requires two distinct groups of “at least one semipermeable membrane”, one disposed between the anodic and feed chambers and another disposed between the cathodic and feed chambers.
Furthermore, claim 28 recites “a second semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the cathode in the cathodic chamber” in lines 5-6. A plain language reading of this limitation requires an additional semipermeable membrane located between the “at least one semipermeable membrane” located between the feed and cathodic chambers recited in claim 19 and the cathode. However, based on the specification and e.g., claim 32, it appears the term “second semipermeable membrane” is intended to refer to the same membrane(s) as the “at least one semipermeable membrane” located between the feed and cathodic chambers recited in claim 19. I.e., it appears the new claims use a different term to refer a component previously recited in claim 19.
Furthermore, claim 28 depends from claim 19, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 19.
For the above reasons, claim 28 is indefinite.

Regarding claim 29, claim 29 recites the limitation “the at least one semipermeable membrane” in line 1. It is unclear to which group of “at least one semipermeable membrane” this limitation refers. Specifically, as described above, claim 19 requires two distinct groups of “at least one semipermeable membrane”, one disposed between the anodic and feed chambers and another disposed between the cathodic and feed chambers.
Furthermore, claim 29 recites the limitations “the anode” and “the cathode” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, claim 19, from which claim 29 depends, does not recite “an anode” or “a cathode”, but merely recites “an anode chamber” and “a cathode chamber”. It is therefore unclear to what these limitations refer.
Furthermore, claim 29 depends from claim 19, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 19.
Claim 29 is therefore indefinite.

Regarding claim 30, claim 30 recites the limitation “the at least one semipermeable membrane” in line 1. It is unclear to which group of “at least one semipermeable membrane” this limitation refers. Specifically, as described above, claim 19 requires two distinct groups of “at least one semipermeable membrane”, one disposed between the anodic and feed chambers and another disposed between the cathodic and feed chambers.
Furthermore, claim 30 recites the limitations “the anode” and “the cathode” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, claim 19, from which claim 30 depends, does not recite “an anode” or “a cathode”, but merely recites “an anode chamber” and “a cathode chamber”. It is therefore unclear to what these limitations refer.
Furthermore, claim 30 depends from claims 19 and 20, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claims 19 and 20.
Claim 30 is therefore indefinite.

Regarding claim 31, claim 31 depends from claim 19, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 19.
Claim 31 is therefore indefinite.

Regarding claim 32, claim 32 recites the limitation “the second semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 28, from which claim 32 depends, recites “a second semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the cathode in the cathodic chamber”, but does not recite a “second semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber”. It is therefore unclear to what the term ““the second semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber” refers.
Furthermore, claim 32 recites the limitation “the semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 19, from which claim 32 depends, recites “at least one semipermeable membrane” between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber. It is therefore unclear whether the term “the semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber” is intended to refer to each of the “at least one semipermeable membrane”, any of the “at least one semipermeable membrane”, or a particular one of the “at least one semipermeable membrane”.
Furthermore, claim 32 depends from claims 19 and 28, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claims 19 and 28.
Claim 32 is therefore indefinite.

Regarding claim 33, claim 33 recites the limitation “the electrodes” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 19, from which claim 33 depends, does not recite “electrodes”, but instead recites “an anode electrode chamber” and “a cathodic electrode chamber”. It is therefore unclear to what the limitation “the electrodes” refers.
Furthermore, claim 33 depends from claim 19, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 33.
Claim 33 is therefore indefinite.

Regarding claim 34, claim 34 recites the limitation “the at least one semipermeable membrane” in lines 1 and 8-9. It is unclear to which group of “at least one semipermeable membrane” this limitation refers. Specifically, as described above, claim 19 requires two distinct groups of “at least one semipermeable membrane”, one disposed between the anodic and feed chambers and another disposed between the cathodic and feed chambers.
Furthermore, claim 34 recites the limitation “a second semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the cathode in the cathodic chamber” in lines 5-6. A plain language reading of this limitation requires an additional semipermeable membrane located between the “at least one semipermeable membrane” located between the feed and cathodic chambers recited in claim 19 and the cathode. However, based on the specification and e.g., claim 32, it appears the term “second semipermeable membrane” is intended to refer to the same membrane(s) as the “at least one semipermeable membrane” located between the feed and cathodic chambers recited in claim 19. I.e., it appears the new claims use a different term to refer a component previously recited in claim 19.
Furthermore, claim 34 depends from claims 19 and 20, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claims 19 and 20.

Regarding claim 35, claim 35 recites the limitation “the at least one semipermeable membrane is located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber” in lines 1-2. However, claim 19, from which claim 35 depends, recites “wherein the feed chamber is between and adjacent to the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber and the feed chamber is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber by at least one semipermeable membrane” in lines 12-14, emphasis added. I.e., claim 19 already explicitly requires the limitation “the at least one semipermeable membrane is located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber”. It is therefore unclear what is meant by this limitation.
Furthermore, claim 35 recites the limitation “a second semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the cathode in the cathodic chamber” in lines 5-6. A plain language reading of this limitation requires an additional semipermeable membrane located between the “at least one semipermeable membrane” located between the feed and cathodic chambers recited in claim 19 and the cathode. However, based on the specification and e.g., claim 32, it appears the term “second semipermeable membrane” is intended to refer to the same membrane(s) as the “at least one semipermeable membrane” located between the feed and cathodic chambers recited in claim 19. I.e., it appears the new claims use a different term to refer a component previously recited in claim 19.
Furthermore, claim 35 depends from claims 19 and 29, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claims 19 and 29.
Claim 35 is therefore indefinite.

Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites “voltage there is a control at a surface of …” in line 1. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation. While it is presumed that the intended reading is “there is a voltage control at a surface of”, this reading would require an additional voltage control beyond the “voltage control system” recited in claim 19, which is not consistent with the specification.
Furthermore, claim 36 recites the limitation “at least one structure selected from the group consisting of a resistor, a conductive grounding element, a time delay circuit, and a capacitor maintaining surface voltage at the surface of the membrane at no more than 2 volts” in lines 2-4. It is unclear whether the phrase “maintaining surface voltage at the surface of the membrane at no more than 2 volts” is intended to limit only the capacitor, or is intended to apply to any/each of the “at least one structure selected”.
Furthermore, claim 36 depends from claim 19, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 19.
Claim 36 is therefore indefinite.

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.

Claims 19-20, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohmi (US Pat. Pub. 2012/0031763 A1).

Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has been interpreted as “wherein an electrical voltage control system is in connection with at least one of the semipermeable membranes.”

Ohmi teaches an aqueous electronic separator (abstract), wherein the aqueous electronic separator comprises at least three chambers (see e.g., Fig. 4), wherein the at least three chambers comprise:
a) a feed chamber (“chamber 307” para. 41 and Fig. 4) having a liquid exit port from which a mediated aqueous contaminated feed liquid exits (“The treated water having passed through the chambers 306, 307, and 308” para. 42 and see Fig. 4) and a liquid input port into which the contaminated aqueous feed liquid enters the feed chamber (“seawater or fresh water is supplied into a chamber 307 sandwiched between the cation exchange membrane 305 and the anion exchange membrane 304.” para. 41 and see Fig. 4);
b) an anodic electrode chamber (“a chamber 306 between the anode 301 and the cation exchange membrane 305” para. 41 and Fig. 4) filled with an aqueous anodic liquid (“seawater is supplied, as feed water to be treated, into a chamber 306” Id.) and
c) a cathodic electrode chamber (“chamber 308 between the cathode 302 and the anion exchange membrane 304” para. 41 and Fig. 4) filled with an aqueous cathodic liquid (“seawater is supplied, as feed water to be treated, into … a chamber 308” Id.);
wherein the feed chamber is between and adjacent to the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber (Fig. 4 and see para. 41) and the feed chamber is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber by at least one semipermeable membrane (“sandwiched between the cation exchange membrane 305 and the anion exchange membrane 304” para. 41 and Fig. 4); and
wherein an electrical voltage control system (“intermediate electrode 303” para. 38 and Fig. 4) is in connection with at least one of the semipermeable membranes (“is grounded” para. 38 and see below).

Regarding the limitation “in connection with at least one of the semipermeable membranes”, Ohmi teaches the “intermediate electrode 303” is grounded (para. 38), and reduces the potential difference across the membranes to below ±2 V (para. 47, see also Fig. 2). The electrical voltage control system of Ohmi is therefore considered to be “in connection” with each of the semipermeable membranes under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 19 as currently drafted.

Regarding the preamble limitation “An apparatus for moderating a concentration of at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials from a contaminated aqueous feed liquid containing an original concentration of between 5 parts per trillion and 3000 parts per billion of the at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials in water”, this limitation is directed to an intended use of the apparatus. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations drawn to an intended use limit an apparatus such that the apparatus must be structurally capable of performing the intended use (MPEP § 2114(II) and 2115).
In the instant case, the specification indicates that a system comprising two electrodes, an anion exchange membrane and a cation exchange membrane disposed between the two electrodes, and an electrical voltage control system disposed between said membranes, wherein the electrical voltage control system is a ground capable of reducing the potential exerted on at least one of said membranes, is capable of moderating a concentration of at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials from a contaminated aqueous feed liquid containing an original concentration of between 5 parts per trillion and 3000 parts per billion of the at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials in water.
As described above, the system of Ohmi teaches each of these structural limitations. The system of Ohmi is therefore considered to be capable of moderating a concentration of at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials from a contaminated aqueous feed liquid containing an original concentration of between 5 parts per trillion and 3000 parts per billion of the at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials in water.
Ohmi thus anticipates each of the limitations of claim 19.

Regarding claim 20, Ohmi further teaches the electrical voltage control system is a ground (“is grounded” para. 38), and is effected by a conductive grounding element and/or a capacitor (“intermediate electrode 303” para. 38 and Fig. 4, see also below).

The “intermediate electrode 303” is, by definition, conductive, and therefore reads on “a conductive grounding element”. Additionally, the “intermediate electrode 303” can be electrically connected to the electrodes 301 and 302, as depicted in Fig. 4, such that a charge can be stored between the intermediate electrode and either of the electrodes 301 and 303. The “intermediate electrode 303” is therefore also considered to read on “a capacitor”.

Regarding claim 31, Ohmi anticipates the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Ohmi further teaches the apparatus is grounded (“is grounded” para. 38) to reduce the voltage potential and capacitance across the apparatus (para. 47, see also Fig. 2).

Regarding claim 33, claim 33 has been interpreted as “further comprising an anode and a cathode each comprising a surface containing …”.
Ohmi anticipates the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Ohmi further teaches an anode and a cathode each comprising a surface containing platinum (“Pt is used as the anode 101 and LaB6 or Pt is used as the cathode 102” para. 58).

Claims 19-20, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dasgupta (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0048498 A1).

Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has been interpreted as “wherein an electrical voltage control system is in connection with at least one of the semipermeable membranes.”
Dasgupta teaches an aqueous electronic separator (abstract), wherein the aqueous electronic separator comprises at least three chambers (see e.g., Fig. 2), wherein the at least three chambers comprise:
a) a feed chamber (“central channel 12” para. 31 and Fig. 2a) having a liquid exit port from which a mediated aqueous contaminated feed liquid exits (“outlet 12b” para. 32) and a liquid input port into which the contaminated aqueous feed liquid enters the feed chamber (“inlet 12a” para. 32);
b) an anodic electrode chamber (“anode channel 22” para. 33 and Fig. 2a) filled with an aqueous anodic liquid (“an aqueous cation source electrolyte solution from a source, not shown, flows … through channel 22” para. 32) and
c) a cathodic electrode chamber (“cathode channel 26” para. 33 and Fig. 2a) filled with an aqueous cathodic liquid (“An aqueous anion source electrolyte solution from a source, not shown, flows … through channel 26” para. 32);
wherein the feed chamber is between and adjacent to the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber (see Fig. 2a) and the feed chamber is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber by at least one semipermeable membrane (“cation exchange membrane (CEM) sheet 14” and “anion exchange membrane (AEM) sheet 16” para. 30 and Fig. 2a); and
wherein an electrical voltage control system (“electrode 28” para. 31 and Fig. 2a) is in connection with at least one of the semipermeable membranes (“is grounded” Id. and see para. 39 and Figs. 4-6).

Regarding the preamble limitation “An apparatus for moderating a concentration of at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials from a contaminated aqueous feed liquid containing an original concentration of between 5 parts per trillion and 3000 parts per billion of the at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials in water”, this limitation is directed to an intended use of the apparatus. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations drawn to an intended use limit an apparatus such that the apparatus must be structurally capable of performing the intended use (MPEP § 2114(II) and 2115).
In the instant case, the specification indicates that a system comprising two electrodes, an anion exchange membrane and a cation exchange membrane disposed between the two electrodes, and an electrical voltage control system disposed between said membranes, wherein the electrical voltage control system is a ground capable of reducing the potential exerted on at least one of said membranes, is capable of moderating a concentration of at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials from a contaminated aqueous feed liquid containing an original concentration of between 5 parts per trillion and 3000 parts per billion of the at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials in water.
As described above, the system of Dasgupta teaches each of these structural limitations. The system of Dasgupta is therefore considered to be capable of moderating a concentration of at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials from a contaminated aqueous feed liquid containing an original concentration of between 5 parts per trillion and 3000 parts per billion of the at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials in water.
Dasgupta thus anticipates each of the limitations of claim 19.

Regarding claim 20, Dasgupta further teaches the electrical voltage control system is a ground (“is grounded” para. 31), and is a conductive grounding element (“electrode 28” para. 31 and Fig. 2a).

Regarding claim 31, Dasgupta anticipates the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Dasgupta further teaches the apparatus is grounded (“is grounded” para. 31) to reduce the voltage potential and capacitance across the apparatus (para. 28).

Regarding claim 33, claim 33 has been interpreted as “further comprising an anode and a cathode each comprising a surface containing …”.
Dasgupta anticipates the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Dasgupta further teaches an anode and a cathode each comprising a surface containing platinum (“250 μm diameter platinum wires are placed inside each channel as electrodes” para. 57).

Claims 19-20, 31, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Volkel (US Pat. Pub. 2010/0140092 A1).

Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has been interpreted as “wherein an electrical voltage control system is in connection with at least one of the semipermeable membranes.”
Volkel teaches an aqueous electronic separator (abstract and e.g., para. 7), wherein the aqueous electronic separator comprises at least three chambers (see Fig. 7), wherein the at least three chambers comprise:
a) a feed chamber (“feed channels 7301, 7302, 730N” para. 51 and Fig. 7) having a liquid exit port from which a mediated aqueous contaminated feed liquid exits (see Fig. 7) and a liquid input port into which the contaminated aqueous feed liquid enters the feed chamber (see Fig. 7);
b) an anodic electrode chamber filled with an aqueous anodic liquid (“buffer chambers … 754” para. 51 and Fig. 7); and
c) a cathodic electrode chamber filled with an aqueous cathodic liquid (“buffer chambers 752” para. 51 and Fig. 7);
wherein the feed chamber is between and adjacent to the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber (see Fig. 7) and the feed chamber is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber by at least one semipermeable membrane (“N first membranes 7121, 7122, ..., 712N and N-1 second membranes 7141, 7142, ... 714N-1” and “Each of the N first membranes 7121, 7122, ..., 712N and N-1 second membranes 7141, 7142, ... 714N-1 are both conductive and ion-exchanging” para. 51 and Fig. 7); and
wherein an electrical voltage control system (“voltage supply distribution network” para. 20, comprising “voltage sources 7441 to 744N” and “voltage sources 7461 to 746N” para. 51 and Fig. 7) is in connection with at least one of the semipermeable membranes (“N voltage sources 7441 to 744N between the two consecutive membranes 712k and 714k (k=l, ..., N), N voltage sources 7461 to 746N (k=l, ..., N) between two consecutive membranes 714k and 712k” and “formed by laminating an anion exchange membrane (AEM) or cation exchange membrane (CEM) to an aerogel membrane” para. 51 and Fig. 7, see also para. 32, which indicates the “aerogel membranes” are part of the “voltage supply distribution network”).

Regarding the preamble limitation “An apparatus for moderating a concentration of at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials from a contaminated aqueous feed liquid containing an original concentration of between 5 parts per trillion and 3000 parts per billion of the at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials in water”, this limitation is directed to an intended use of the apparatus. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations drawn to an intended use limit an apparatus such that the apparatus must be structurally capable of performing the intended use (MPEP § 2114(II) and 2115).
In the instant case, the specification indicates that a system comprising two electrodes, an anion exchange membrane and a cation exchange membrane disposed between the two electrodes, and an electrical voltage control system disposed between said membranes, wherein the electrical voltage control system is a ground capable of reducing the potential exerted on at least one of said membranes, is capable of moderating a concentration of at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials from a contaminated aqueous feed liquid containing an original concentration of between 5 parts per trillion and 3000 parts per billion of the at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials in water.
As described above, the system of Volkel teaches each of these structural limitations. The system of Volkel is therefore considered to be capable of moderating a concentration of at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials from a contaminated aqueous feed liquid containing an original concentration of between 5 parts per trillion and 3000 parts per billion of the at least highly fluorinated alkyl materials in water.
Volkel thus anticipates each of the limitations of claim 19.

Regarding claim 20, the limitation “the ground is effected by at least one structure selected from the group consisting of a resistor, a conductive grounding element, a time delay circuit, and a capacitor” has been interpreted as “the electrical voltage control system serves as a ground, and is effected by at least one structure selected from the group consisting of a resistor, a conductive grounding element, a time delay circuit, and a capacitor”.
Under this interpretation, the limitation “the electrical voltage control system serves as a ground, and is effected by at least one structure selected from the group consisting of a resistor, a conductive grounding element, a time delay circuit, and a capacitor” is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Volkel teaches the electrical voltage control system is conductive i.e., it is capable of applying a voltage to the membranes (see para. 51). The electrical voltage control system is therefore capable of applying a ground potential to the membranes. I.e., the electrical voltage control system of Volkel is a conductive grounding element. It is therefore considered that the electrical voltage control system of Volkel is capable of serving as a ground.
Volkel therefore anticipates the limitations of claim 20.

Regarding claim 31, Volkel anticipates the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
The limitation “the apparatus is grounded to reduce the voltage potential and capacitance across the apparatus”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Volkel teaches that the electrical voltage control system i.e., the “voltage supply distribution network” is capable of applying an arbitrary potential to any individual membrane in the apparatus (see paras. 20 and 51). The electrical voltage control system is therefore necessarily capable of serving as a ground for the apparatus.
Volkel therefore anticipates the limitations of claim 31.

Regarding claim 36, claim 36 has been interpreted as “wherein the electrical voltage control system is disposed on a surface of at least one of the semipermeable membranes, and comprises at least one structure selected from the group consisting of a resistor, a conductive grounding element, a time delay circuit, and a capacitor capable of maintaining a surface voltage of the membrane at no more than 2 volts”.

Volkel anticipates the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Volkel further teaches the electrical voltage control system is disposed on a surface of at least one of the semipermeable membranes (“formed by laminating an anion exchange membrane (AEM) or cation exchange membrane (CEM) to an aerogel membrane” para. 51 and Fig. 7, and para. 32 indicates the “aerogel membranes” are part of the “voltage supply distribution network” i.e., the electrical voltage control system), and comprises a conductive grounding element (see below).
Volkel teaches that the electrical voltage control system i.e., the “voltage supply distribution network” is capable of applying an arbitrary potential to any individual membrane in the apparatus (see paras. 20 and 51). The electrical voltage control system of Volkel is therefore capable of serving as a ground, and thus reads on “a conductive grounding element”.
Volkel thus anticipates the limitations of claim 36.

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 28-30 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0048498 A1) in view of Porada et al. (“Tailoring ion exchange membranes to enable low osmotic water transport and energy efficient electrodialysis” Journal of Membrane Science 552 (2018) 22–30).

Regarding claim 28, claim 28 has been interpreted as “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber and the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber”.

Dasgupta anticipates the limitations of claim 19, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Dasgupta further teaches an anode in the anodic electrode chamber (“electrode 32” para. 31 and Fig. 7) and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber (“electrode 30” Id.), and
the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber (“central buffer-generating channel 12 … defined by gasket 13” para. 30 and Fig. 1, see also Fig. 7).

The limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber”, as currently interpreted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Dasgupta does not teach the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber i.e., “anion exchange membrane (AEM) sheet 16” is capable of retaining highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current. Dasgupta is silent as to this property.
However, Porada teaches that AEMs comprising Fumatech™ FAS (see Table 2) provide the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport when used for electrodialysis (abstract and § 4).
As Dasgupta and Porada each teach electrodialysis systems, Dasgupta and Porada are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Dasgupta, such that the AEMs comprise Fumatech™ FAS disposed on a mesh material, as taught by Porada. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport, as taught by Porada. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
The instant specification indicates that Fumatech™ FAS is capable of retaining highly fluorinated alkyl materials when used in an electrodialysis setup (Table 3-1).
Modified Dasgupta therefore renders the limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber” obvious.

Regarding claim 29, claim 29 has been interpreted as “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber …”
Dasgupta anticipates the limitations of claim 19, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
The limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to restrict at least 80% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode”, as currently interpreted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Dasgupta does not teach the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber i.e., “anion exchange membrane (AEM) sheet 16” is capable of restricting at least 80% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode. Dasgupta is silent as to this property.
However, Porada teaches that AEMs comprising Fumatech™ FAS (see Table 2) provide the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport when used for electrodialysis (abstract and § 4).
As Dasgupta and Porada each teach electrodialysis systems, Dasgupta and Porada are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Dasgupta, such that the AEMs comprise Fumatech™ FAS disposed on a mesh material, as taught by Porada. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport, as taught by Porada. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
The instant specification indicates that Fumatech™ FAS is capable of restricting at least 80% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode (Table 3-1).
Modified Dasgupta therefore renders the limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to restrict at least 80% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode” obvious.

Regarding claim 30, claim 30 has been interpreted as “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber …”
Dasgupta anticipates the limitations of claim 20, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
The limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to restrict at least 90% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode”, as currently interpreted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Dasgupta does not teach the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber i.e., “anion exchange membrane (AEM) sheet 16” is capable of restricting at least 90% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode. Dasgupta is silent as to this property.
However, Porada teaches that AEMs comprising Fumatech™ FAS (see Table 2) provide the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport when used for electrodialysis (abstract and § 4).
The instant specification indicates that Fumatech™ FAS is capable of restricting at least 90% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode (Table 3-1).
As Dasgupta and Porada each teach electrodialysis systems, Dasgupta and Porada are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Dasgupta, such that the AEMs comprise Fumatech™ FAS disposed on a mesh material, as taught by Porada. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport, as taught by Porada. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
The instant specification indicates that Fumatech™ FAS is capable of restricting at least 90% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode (Table 3-1).
Modified Dasgupta therefore renders the limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to restrict at least 90% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode” obvious.

Regarding claim 34, claim 34 has been interpreted as “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber and the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber”.

Dasgupta anticipates the limitations of claim 20, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Dasgupta further teaches an anode in the anodic electrode chamber (“electrode 32” para. 31 and Fig. 7) and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber (“electrode 30” Id.), and
the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber (“central buffer-generating channel 12 … defined by gasket 13” para. 30 and Fig. 1, see also Fig. 7).

The limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber”, as currently interpreted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Dasgupta does not teach the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber i.e., “anion exchange membrane (AEM) sheet 16” is capable of retaining highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current. Dasgupta is silent as to this property.
However, Porada teaches that AEMs comprising Fumatech™ FAS (see Table 2) provide the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport when used for electrodialysis (abstract and § 4).
As Dasgupta and Porada each teach electrodialysis systems, Dasgupta and Porada are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Dasgupta, such that the AEMs comprise Fumatech™ FAS disposed on a mesh material, as taught by Porada. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport, as taught by Porada. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
The instant specification indicates that Fumatech™ FAS is capable of retaining highly fluorinated alkyl materials when used in an electrodialysis setup (Table 3-1).
Modified Dasgupta therefore renders the limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber” obvious.

Regarding claim 35, claim 35 has been interpreted as “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber and the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber”.
Modified Dasgupta teaches the limitations of claim 29, as described above.
Dasgupta further teaches an anode in the anodic electrode chamber (“electrode 32” para. 31 and Fig. 7) and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber (“electrode 30” Id.), and
the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber (“central buffer-generating channel 12 … defined by gasket 13” para. 30 and Fig. 1, see also Fig. 7).

The limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber”, as currently interpreted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, modified Dasgupta teaches, via Porada, the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is capable of retaining highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current i.e., the AEMs comprise Fumatech™ FAS (see Table 2).
Modified Dasgupta therefore renders the limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber” obvious.

Claims 28, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmi (US Pat. Pub. 2012/0031763 A1) in view of Dasgupta (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0048498 A1) and Porada et al. (“Tailoring ion exchange membranes to enable low osmotic water transport and energy efficient electrodialysis” Journal of Membrane Science 552 (2018) 22–30).

Regarding claim 28, claim 28 has been interpreted as “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber and the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber”.

Ohmi anticipates the limitations of claim 19, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Ohmi further teaches an anode in the anodic electrode chamber (“anode 301” para. 38 and Fig. 4) and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber (“cathode 302” Id.).

Ohmi does not teach the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber.
However, Dasgupta teaches a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber can be used to define the fluidic channels (“central buffer-generating channel 12 … defined by gasket 13” para. 30 and Fig. 1, see also Fig. 7) in an electrodialysis apparatus (para. 29).
As Ohmi and Dasgupta each teach electrodialysis systems, Ohmi and Dasgupta are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Ohmi, by adding a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber, as taught by Dasgupta. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to define the fluidic channels of the system of Ohmi, as taught by Dasgupta. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).

The limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber”, as currently interpreted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, modified Ohmi does not teach the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber i.e., “positive ion (cation) exchange membrane 305,” is capable of retaining highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current. Ohmi is silent as to this property.
However, Porada teaches that CEMs comprising Fumatech™ FKS (see Table 2) provide the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport when used for electrodialysis (abstract and § 4).
As Porada teaches an electrodialysis system, Porada is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Ohmi, such that the CEMs comprise Fumatech™ FKS disposed on a mesh material, as taught by Porada. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport, as taught by Porada. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
The instant specification indicates that Fumatech™ FKS is capable of retaining highly fluorinated alkyl materials when used in an electrodialysis setup (Table 3-1).
Modified Ohmi therefore renders the limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber” obvious.

Regarding claim 32, claim 32 has been interpreted as “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber allows passage of anions but restricts passage of cations through the semipermeable membrane, and the at least one semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber allows passage of cations but restricts passage of anions through the semipermeable membrane”.
Ohmi further teaches the at least one semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber allows passage of anions but restricts passage of cations through the semipermeable membrane (“negative ion (anion) exchange membrane 304” para. 38 and Fig. 4), and the at least one semipermeable membrane between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber allows passage of cations but restricts passage of anions through the semipermeable membrane (“positive ion (cation) exchange membrane 305” Id.).

Regarding claim 34, claim 34 has been interpreted as “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber and the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber”.

Ohmi anticipates the limitations of claim 20, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Ohmi further teaches an anode in the anodic electrode chamber (“electrode 32” para. 31 and Fig. 7) and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber (“electrode 30” Id.).
Ohmi does not teach the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber.
However, Dasgupta teaches a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber can be used to define the fluidic channels (“central buffer-generating channel 12 … defined by gasket 13” para. 30 and Fig. 1, see also Fig. 7) in an electrodialysis apparatus (para. 29).
As Ohmi and Dasgupta each teach electrodialysis systems, Ohmi and Dasgupta are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Ohmi, by adding a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber, as taught by Dasgupta. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to define the fluidic channels of the system of Ohmi, as taught by Dasgupta. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).

The limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber”, as currently interpreted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Ohmi does not teach the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber i.e., “positive ion (cation) exchange membrane 305,” is capable of retaining highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current. Ohmi is silent as to this property.
However, Porada teaches that CEMs comprising Fumatech™ FKS (see Table 2) provide the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport when used for electrodialysis (abstract and § 4).
As Porada teaches an electrodialysis system, Porada is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Ohmi, such that the CEMs comprise Fumatech™ FKS disposed on a mesh material, as taught by Porada. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport, as taught by Porada. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
The instant specification indicates that Fumatech™ FKS is capable of retaining highly fluorinated alkyl materials when used in an electrodialysis setup (Table 3-1).
Modified Ohmi therefore renders the limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber” obvious.

Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmi (US Pat. Pub. 2012/0031763 A1) in view of Porada et al. (“Tailoring ion exchange membranes to enable low osmotic water transport and energy efficient electrodialysis” Journal of Membrane Science 552 (2018) 22–30).

Regarding claim 29, claim 29 has been interpreted as “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber …”
Ohmi anticipates the limitations of claim 19, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
The limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to restrict at least 80% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode”, as currently interpreted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Ohmi does not teach the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber i.e., “positive ion (cation) exchange membrane 305,” is capable of restricting at least 80% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode. Ohmi is silent as to this property.
However, Porada teaches that CEMs comprising Fumatech™ FKS (see Table 2) provide the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport when used for electrodialysis (abstract and § 4).
As Ohmi and Porada each teach electrodialysis systems, Ohmi and Porada are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Ohmi, such that the CEMs comprise Fumatech™ FKS disposed on a mesh material, as taught by Porada. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport, as taught by Porada. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
The instant specification indicates that Fumatech™ FKS is capable of restricting at least 80% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode (Table 3-1).
Modified Ohmi therefore renders the limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to restrict at least 80% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode” obvious.

Regarding claim 30, claim 30 has been interpreted as “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber …”
Ohmi anticipates the limitations of claim 20, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
The limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to restrict at least 90% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode”, as currently interpreted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Ohmi does not teach the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber i.e., “positive ion (cation) exchange membrane 305,” is capable of restricting at least 90% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode. Ohmi is silent as to this property.
However, Porada teaches that AEMs comprising Fumatech™ FAS (see Table 2) provide the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport when used for electrodialysis (abstract and § 4).
As Ohmi and Porada each teach electrodialysis systems, Ohmi and Porada are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Ohmi, such that the CEMs comprise Fumatech™ FKS disposed on a mesh material, as taught by Porada. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of reducing osmotic water transport, as taught by Porada. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
The instant specification indicates that Fumatech™ FKS is capable of restricting at least 90% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode (Table 3-1).
Modified Ohmi therefore renders the limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to restrict at least 90% by number of perfluoroethylacrylate molecules in a concentration of 1 part per million in water from passing from the feed chamber into the anodic electrode chamber upon the application of current between an anode and a cathode” obvious.

Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmi in view of Porada, as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Dasgupta (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0048498 A1).

Regarding claim 35, claim 35 has been interpreted as “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber and the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber”.
Modified Ohmi teaches the limitations of claim 29, as described above.
Ohmi further teaches an anode in the anodic electrode chamber (“electrode 32” para. 31 and Fig. 7) and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber (“electrode 30” Id.).

The limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber”, as currently interpreted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, modified Ohmi teaches, via Porada, the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is capable of retaining highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current i.e., the CEMs comprise Fumatech™ FKS (see Table 2).
Modified Ohmi therefore renders the limitation “wherein the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber is configured to retain the highly fluorinated alkyl materials upon application of a current between an anode in the anodic electrode chamber and a cathode in the cathodic electrode chamber” obvious.

Modified Ohmi does not teach the feed chamber comprises a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber.
However, Dasgupta teaches a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber can be used to define the fluidic channels (“central buffer-generating channel 12 … defined by gasket 13” para. 30 and Fig. 1, see also Fig. 7) in an electrodialysis apparatus (para. 29).
As Dasgupta teaches an electrodialysis system, Dasgupta is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Ohmi, by adding a spacer that is separated from each of the anodic electrode chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber which prevents contact between the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the anodic electrode chamber and the at least one semipermeable membrane located between the feed chamber and the cathodic electrode chamber, as taught by Dasgupta. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to define the fluidic channels of the system of Ohmi, as taught by Dasgupta. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Long (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0390708 A1) teaches an apparatus for removing metal ion contaminants from a fluid by electrodialysis, wherein the contaminants are retained in semipermeable ion exchange membranes (see e.g., paras. 6-8), and the anion exchange membrane is Fumasep® FAS-50 (para. 55).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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 [phone]. 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.

/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795

Prosecution Timeline

• Jan 12, 2023: Application Filed
• Jan 06, 2026: Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)