DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-12, 15, 16, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0213066 to Gifford et al. (Gifford).
As to claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16, Gifford teaches an electrochemical water treatment device connected to a source of water to be treated having weakly ionized species, the device comprising an electrochemical separation module (100) connected to the source of water to be treated, the module (100) comprising a first electrode (anode) (122) and a second electrode (cathode) (120) and a plurality of dilution compartments (160), each dilution compartment including a first region (112A) of ion exchange media having a first average particle size of 600 microns, a second region (112B) of ion exchange media having a second average particle size of 150 to 300 microns, a third region (112C) of ion exchange media having a third average particle size of 600 microns, each of the regions comprising the same ion exchange media in that each comprise a 50/50 mixture of anion and cation exchange resins (Paragraphs 0040, 0090 and 0091; Figure 1). Gifford fails to teach the specific relative volumes of the regions. However, Gifford teaches that each layer may comprise any suitable fraction of the compartment depending on providing a desired performance and further specifically teach benefits to providing the smaller diameter particles in terms of improving packing, reducing the likelihood of channeling or flow bypass along the compartment walls, cation migration activity, overall deionization (decrease in outlet resistivity) (Paragraphs 0042 and 0090). Therefore, rendering obvious any number of volume sizes for the second region including an increased size of from 50% to 90% of the total volume (thus 10% to 50% remaining for the first and third regions combined) in order to achieve performance as desired as taught by Gifford.
As to claim 2, Gifford teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus of the combination, structed as in the present claims, would be capable of performing the functional language of claim 2 depending on operating conditions, such as temperature, applied voltage/current, the content of the starting fluid, the inlet pressure of the starting fluid and the flow rate of the starting fluid (MPEP 2114).
As to claims 24 and 25, Gifford teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Gifford further teaches that the module comprises concentration compartments which can include ion exchange media identical to that of the dilution compartments (Paragraph 0040).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2002/0189951 A1 to Liang et al. (Liang).
As to claim 13, Gifford teaches the apparatus of claim 12. However, Gifford teaches that the cation exchange resin is a weak cation exchange resin (Claim 4). However, Liang also discusses sectioned electrodeionization compartments with ion exchange resins and teaches that a strong acid cation exchange resin is a known equivalent to weak acid cation exchange resins (Paragraph 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the weak cation exchange resin of Gifford with a strong acid cation exchange resin as a known equivalent for effectively performing the electrodeionization as taught by Liang (MPEP 2144.06 II).
As to claim 14, Gifford teaches the apparatus of claim 12. However, Gifford teaches that the anion exchange resin is a weak anion exchange resin (Claim 5). However, Liang also discusses sectioned electrodeionization compartments with ion exchange resins and teaches that a strong base anion exchange resin is a known equivalent to weak base anion exchange resins (Paragraph 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the weak anion exchange resin of Gifford with a strong base anion exchange resin as a known equivalent for effectively performing the electrodeionization as taught by Liang (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford as applied to claims 15 and 16 above, and further in view of JP 2004-167291 to Miwa et al. (Miwa).
As to claims 17 and 19, Gifford teaches the apparatus of claims 15 and 16. However, Gifford fails to discuss the crosslinking of the anion or cation exchange materials. However, Miwa also discusses electrodeionization with mixed anion and cation exchange resins for water treatment and teaches that the degree of crosslinking should be optimized in view of strength and electrical resistance, which are inversely related, and teaches that desirable values is 3 to 8% crosslinking for the anion exchange resin and 5 to 10% for the cation exchange resin (Paragraphs 0019-0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to crosslink the anion and cation resins of Gifford as in Miwa in order to optimize strength and electrical resistance as taught by Miwa.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that Gifford fail to disclose or indicate any appreciation of selecting volume proportions of regions of differently sized ion exchange resin particles of a dilution compartment of an electrochemical separation module that optimize between increased recovery of weakly ionized species and pressure drop of water exiting the electrochemical separation module. However, it is important to note that this optimization is not required by the claims and that the prior art need not have the same reason for making modification as Applicant. The Examiner maintains that Gifford specifically teaches that any proportion of volume can be utilized in order to meet performance as desired, and thus renders obvious the volume proportions claimed, absent narrowing limitations or an effective showing of unexpected results.
Applicants do next discuss “unexpected improvements”. However, it is important to note that in order to effectively argue unexpected results the unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. Applicants argue that the claimed invention provides a 3-log removal in a single pass wherein Gifford provides less in five passes. However, this 3-log removal is disclosed in the specification as specific to boron, which is not present in the claims. Furthermore, the specific examples disclosed in the specification further give, at least, specific resins, operating temperature, applied current, particle sizes, crosslinking, cell dimensions, flow rate and number of cells. The majority of these limitations are not present in the claims at all or are present only in dependent claims as separate limitations (i.e. no claim includes all these features together).
Applicants further argue against Liang and that weak and strong resins cannot be considered equivalents, as that is the same as saying they are exactly the same things. The Examiner disagrees, the Examiner maintains that there are known equivalents for use as ion exchange resins in electrolytic material treatment, i.e. known to be used for the same purpose, not known to be exactly the same thing, and maintains that the rejection is proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights