Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-19, in the reply filed on June 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, after 100nm, the word “up” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, after “more than one pair”, the term “of pair” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, after “an electrode unit that”, the word “provide” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Danyi et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0259745).
Regarding claim 1, Danyi discloses an electrolytic cell comprising:
a housing (figures 6-8) including:
an interfacial seal (O-rings 15, 16; paragraphs 82-84; figure 4),
a top plate (2); and bottom plate (13), and
an internal compartment that includes at least:
a pair of contact plates (4, 11; paragraphs 82-83),
a tolerance compressor (plate 3 correlate to the tolerance compressor) that compresses an electrode-membrane-electrode stack (40) which includes a pair of electrodes and at least one proton/cation exchange membrane (paragraphs 36, 66, 72, 82-83 – a pressure chamber is formed within end units arranged at both ends of the stack to provide adaptive pressure control on the cells from both sides, thus providing uniform pressure distribution throughout the cells),
wherein the electrode-membrane-electrode stack (40) is disposed between the pair of contact plates (4, 11) and the tolerance compressor (3) is configured to alter the dimensions of the tolerance compressor responsive to thinning of the proton exchange membrane, in order to maintain compressive forces on at least the electrode-membrane-electrode stack (paragraphs 28, 133 – pressure tolerance is provided, i.e. pressure applied to the electrolyzer stack improves the coordination of various stack components, sealing elements and electrical contacts by compensating the negative effects of imperfect matches in the dimensions and deformation of the components and thus, results in enhanced stack performance).
As to the phrase “electrolytic ozone cell”, the phrase is interpreted under MPEP 2111.02 II as a statement limiting the intended use of the claimed structure. During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art.” In the instant case, the phrase is not deemed to further structurally differentiate the instantly claimed structure. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 3, the pair of contact plates of Danyi are titanium (Ti) contact plates (titanium exhibits high mechanical strength; paragraph 134).
Regarding claim 7, Danyi teaches all the claimed structural limitations and thus, the device of Danyi would inherently provide compression for the electrode-membrane-electrode stack over a range of between 2 to 50 % of the thickness of the tolerance compressor (3), as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, the path for water flow of Danyi is necessarily based on a thickness and inner profile of a contact plate of the pair of contact plates (figures 4 and 6-8).
Regarding claim 11, the electrolytic cell of Danyi comprises more than one pair of electrodes (figure 4; paragraphs 78-84).
Regarding claim 14, Danyi discloses wherein the cell is configured to control a velocity of water that flows over an area of bubble formation along triple phase boundaries (TPB – solid, liquid, gas) formed by an electrode-water-membrane intersection (paragraphs 66, 102).
Regarding claim 17, Danyi further teaches wherein the electrode-membrane-electrode stack includes one or more pairs of electrodes in the same cell (figure 4; paragraphs 78-84).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the one or more pairs are each independently controlled (paragraph 36 – to ensure independent electrochemical performance, the pressure chambers are applied in pairs).
Regarding claim 19, Danyi teaches an apparatus comprising:
a water supply for delivering water to an electrolytic cell (100 – water may be used as anolyte; paragraph 48),
a gas separator disposed in a recirculation loop of a fluid pathway that also contains the electrolytic cell (100; figure 1 - when the stream of anolyte 213 leaves the stack 100, and before being recirculated into said stack 100, the oxygen content in said anolyte 213 gets released within the anolyte refresher unit 2111 and is vented out through 214. The anolyte refresher unit 211 acts as a gas separator; paragraph 70); and
the electrolytic cell (100),
wherein the electrolytic cell further comprises:
a housing (figures 6-8) including:
an interfacial seal (O-rings 15, 16; paragraphs 82-84; figure 4),
a top plate (2); and bottom plate (13), and
an internal compartment that includes at least:
a pair of contact plates (4, 11; paragraphs 82-83),
a tolerance compressor (plate 3 correlates to the tolerance compressor) that compresses an electrode-membrane-electrode stack (40) which includes a pair of electrodes and at least one proton/cation exchange membrane (paragraphs 36, 66, 72, 82-83 – a pressure chamber is formed within end units arranged at both ends of the stack to provide adaptive pressure control on the cells from both sides, thus providing uniform pressure distribution throughout the cells),
wherein the electrode-membrane-electrode stack (40) is disposed between the pair of contact plates (4, 11) and the tolerance compressor (3) is configured to alter the dimensions of the tolerance compressor responsive to thinning of the proton exchange membrane, in order to maintain compressive forces on at least the electrode-membrane-electrode stack (paragraphs 28, 133 – pressure tolerance is provided, i.e. pressure applied to the electrolyzer stack improves the coordination of various stack components, sealing elements and electrical contacts by compensating the negative effects of imperfect matches in the dimensions and deformation of the components and thus, results in enhanced stack performance).
As to the phrase “electrolytic ozone cell”, the phrase is interpreted under MPEP 2111.02 II as a statement limiting the intended use of the claimed structure. During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art.” In the instant case, the phrase is not deemed to further structurally differentiate the instantly claimed structure. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danyi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGuire et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0230059).
Regarding claim 2, Danyi discloses all the features discussed above but fails to teach wherein a housing of the electrolytic cell is configured to be coupled to a manifold assembly of an aqueous ozone ultrasonic scaler systems such that it has a flush coplanar interface with the manifold surface.
McGuire discloses a water treatment device comprising a main reactor tank coupled to a manifold assembly (621) of an aqueous ultrasonic scaler system (622A, 622B) in order to create a uniform ultrasonic environment in the tank which helps to increase the mass transfer efficiency of the ozone. In addition, the acoustic cavitations generated by the ultrasonic generators (622A and 622B) also greatly enhance the oxidation rate of the organic material with ozone bubbles and ensure uniform mixing of the oxidant with the effluent (paragraph 50).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to couple the cell of Danyi to a manifold assembly of an ozone ultrasonic scaler system because as taught by McGuire, this arrangement creates a uniform ultrasonic environment in the tank which helps to increase the mass transfer efficiency of the ozone, enhances the oxidation rate of the organic material with ozone bubbles and ensures uniform mixing of the oxidant with the effluent.
Claims 4-6, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danyi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jonte et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2017/0137953).
Regarding claim 4, Danyi teaches all the features discussed above but fails to teach wherein the pair of electrodes are boron dope diamond (BDD) electrodes.
Jonte discloses an electrolytic generator comprising a pair of boron dope diamond electrodes to increase the over-potential voltage of the conductive electrodes and promote conversion of oxygen ions to ozone thereby (abstract; paragraphs 46, 57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use boron dope diamond electrodes, as the electrodes in Danyi, as taught by Jonte, in order to increase the over-potential voltage of the conductive electrodes and effectively promote the desired chemical reactions.
Regarding claim 5, Jante further teaches wherein an electrode of the pair of electrodes is a perforated silicon plate with a boron doped diamond coating (paragraphs 46-48 – the electrodes may include a plurality of water passageways/slots).
Regarding claim 6, the boron doped diamond coating of Jante may have a thickness of between 2-10 µm (paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 12, Jante discloses wherein an electrical contact zone of a contact plate of the pair of contact plates is accessed through the top plate by a spring-loaded electrical contact (1244a, 1244b; figures 18-19) so that the contact plate provides electrical current to an electrode of the pair of electrodes (paragraphs 65, 86).
Regarding claim 13, Jante teaches a contact plate and an electrode are integrated together to form an electrode unit that provides direct electrical contact for a spring-loaded electrical contact figures 4, 18-19; paragraphs 65, 86).
Regarding claim 15, Danyi discloses wherein the electrolytic ozone cell further includes an inner bottom gasket (15) wherein the inner bottom gasket and the tolerance compressor (12) seal off one or more surfaces of the pair of contact plates (11) to inherently create one or more dry electrical contact zones on the tabs of the pair of contact plates (11; figure 4; paragraph 118).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danyi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wood et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2021/0107811).
Regarding claims 8-9, Danyi discloses all the features discussed above but fails to teach wherein the tolerance compressor is inert to ozone and is made from a closed-cell ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) foam material.
Wood teaches an electrochemical cell for wastewater treatment (abstract; paragraph 3 – ozone is generated on the anode surface and subsequently oxidize pollutants within the wastewater solution) comprising compression frames and spacers made from ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) materials to ensure the compression of the electrochemical cell in its assembled state (paragraph 73). EPDM is well-known to be highly resistant ozone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use tolerance compressors made of EPDM in the device of Danyi, as taught by Wodd, in order to ensure the compression of the electrochemical cell in its assembled state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights