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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/3/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 6/3/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: (1) ROBINSON does not teach the claimed DC drive; (2) the restriction requirement improperly sets forth the common technical feature; (3) the method and system are linked by the same common technical feature; and (4) the Office has not met the burden for establishing an a posteriori lack of unity requirement. However, without going into specifics related to ROBINSON, this is not found persuasive because for at least the reasons as set forth in the 102 rejection of claim 1 below based on the newly cited prior art, the prior art teaches the common technical feature of the claimed DC drive as set forth in the prior art rejection of at least claim 1 and so lack of unity does exist.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Electrocoagulation of Chemical Free Waste Water Treatment” by Dynam’eau, as available on the internet on 6/8/19 at https://www.dynameau.co.uk/electro-coagulation.html and as cited in the IDS filed 6/3/26 as NPL reference #2, with reference to the file provided with the IDS submission (hereinafter referred to as “DYNAMEAU”).
Regarding claim 1, DYNAMEAU teaches a method of treating water (see generally DYNAMEAU at page 1, first paragraph/section, teaching an electrocoagulation (EC) method for treating a wide range of industrial waste water; see also DYNAMEAU at page 3, middle paragraph, teaching more specifics of the EC water treatment device), the method comprising:
receiving water to be treated at a first treatment tank (see DYNAMEAU at page 3, middle paragraph, teaching the EC device including electrodes in a reaction chamber, i.e. a treatment tank; see also DYNAMEAU at page 3, third paragraph, teaching the waste water to be treated being placed in the EC plant or device);
converting an alternating current (AC) source to a direct current (DC) using a DC drive (see DYNAMEAU at page 3, middle paragraph, teaching the electrical power supply providing a voltage to the electrodes which converts AC supply to DC to be applied to the electrodes via a controllable digital drive);
providing electrical power to a first pair of electrodes positioned in the first treatment tank using the DC drive (see DYNAMEAU at page 3, middle paragraph as noted above);
introducing ions into the water to be treated from at least one of the electrodes of the pair of electrodes (see DYNAMEAU at page 2 teaching the electrodes acting to cause the sacrificial electrode to give up metal ions into the solution thereby treating the liquid); and
promoting flocculation of at least one impurity in the water to be treated with the ions to produce treated water (see DYNAMEAU at page 2 teaching the ions released from the sacrificial electrode acting as chemical coagulants which causes impurities to coagulate and separate out).
Regarding claim 6, DYNAMEAU teaches the method wherein the electrical power from the DC drive has an electrode voltage value of less than 100 Volts (V) (see DYNAMEAU at page 3, middle paragraph, teaching the voltage being applied ranging from 0-480 V DC).
Regarding claim 18, DYNAMEAU teaches the method further comprising draining solids from the first treatment tank (see DYNAMEAU at page 1, first paragraph, teaching the use of electrocoagulation to remove non-dissolved solids such as heavy metals, COD, BOD, suspended and colloidal solids, FOGs, bacteria, viruses, hydrocarbons, pesticides and herbicides by coagulating the pollutants; see also DYNAMEAU at page 3, middle paragraph, teaching the presence of a reaction chamber which after treatment would necessarily include removal of the separated solids from the reaction chamber for future processing of other waste water).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DYNAMEAU in view of “Electrocoagulation and Advanced Electrocoagulation Processes: A General Review about the Fundamentals, Emerging Applications and its Association with other Technologies” by Segura et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 801, pages 267-299 (2017) (hereinafter referred to as “SEGURA”) and US Pub. No. 2009/0211507 to Fielding et al., (hereinafter referred to as “FIELDING”).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, while DYNAMEAU teaches that it is known to select electrode material and treatment conditions in an EC process so as to optimize efficiency during the operation of the processing (see DYNAMEAU at page 1, last paragraph), DYNAMEAU fails to explicitly teach the method including the step of pretesting the water to be treated to identify the at least one impurity of the water to be treated as claimed.
However, FIELDING teaches that it was known in the art of treating contaminated waste water to first test the waste water to identify the contaminants so that the water treatment can be optimized for the treatment of the particular contaminants known to be present (see FIELDING at Abstract and ¶39). Moreover, SEGURA teaches that it is known to use EC for the treatment of a wide array of contaminants (SEGURA at Abstract), with the contaminants including non-metallic in-organic species, heavy metals, organic pollutants, and industrial effluents (see SEGURA at page 277, section 6). Furthermore, SEGURA lists various electrode materials that were used for the EC treatment including Al, Fe, Mg, Zn, Cu, Pb, Ti, graphite and stainless steel (see SEGURA at Tables 1-4).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of testing the water to be treated so as to be able to make informed decisions on the optimum anode material for efficient operation of the EC process that balanced the cost of the electrodes and the removal efficiency of the water being treated based on the needed treatment/purity of the waste water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the process of DYNAMEAU an initial step of testing the water to be treated to identify the impurity or impurities to be removed, as taught by FIELDING, and to then select an anode material from the many known anode materials, as taught by SEGURA, so as to balance the electrode cost with the needed waste removal efficiency so as to provide for a maximum removal rate with minimal operating costs.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DYNAMEAU in view of US Pub. No. 2006/0175200 to Holland (hereinafter referred to as “HOLLAND”).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, while DYNAMEAU teaches that it is known to select current density and the treatment conditions in an EC process so as to optimize efficiency during the operation of the processing (see DYNAMEAU at page 1, last paragraph), DYNAMEAU fails to explicitly teach the method including the step of pretesting the water to be treated to identify the conductivity of the water and then setting the current to be supplied based on the conductivity as claimed.
However, HOLLAND teaches a method of contaminant separation employing the use of oppositely charged electrodes including a sacrificial electrode to release ions to further enhance separation (see HOLLAND at Abstract and ¶21). HOLLAND also teaches during initial startup that the electrical current supply can be analyzed and adjusted in order to ascertain the most favorable current level (see HOLLAND at ¶43). Furthermore, HOLLAND also teaches the relationship between the current flow, applied voltage and the resistance of the fluid being treated (see HOLLAND at ¶43-¶44). Since the resistance of the water being treated is related to the electrical conductivity, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the electrical conductivity can provide an indication of the potential that is necessary to achieve a certain current flow. HOLLAND teaches as much when it discloses monitoring electrical conductivity of the water to maintain the desired current level by automatically adjusting the applied voltage due to the detected electrical conductivity (see HOLLAND at ¶43).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of measuring the electrical conductivity at startup when determining the desired current level in order to correlate the electrical conductivity with the applied voltage in order to achieve the desired current flow. Moreover, HOLLAND teaches the use of electrical conductivity in order to maintain or set a current level by adjusting the applied voltage between the electrodes as set forth above and so reads on the method as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have pretested the electrical conductivity of the water to be treated and to have set a current level based on the electrical conductivity based on the teachings of HOLLAND in the electrocoagulation method of DYNAMEAU in order to allow for the automatic regulation of the applied potential so as to maintain the desired current level and ensure more efficient operation of the electrocoagulation process.
Regarding claim 7, DYNAMEAU in view of HOLLAND fails to explicitly teach the electrical power from the DC drive having a current value of greater than 150 A as claimed. However, as taught by DYNAMEAU and HOLLAND as set forth in the rejection of claims 4 and 5, current flow or current density, i.e. current per unit surface area is a known result effective variable. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art knows that you need sufficient current density to provide the treatment necessary, but not so much current that you overtreat by flowing excessive current which wastes electricity and excessively erodes the sacrificial anodes. Furthermore, as explicitly taught by DYNAMEAU, it is known to run trials so as to find the best electrode materials and treatment conditions, including supplied current, to enhance treatment rate while minimizing operating costs (see DYNAMEAU at page 1, last paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have optimized the current value based on the water being treated and the desired purity required so as to minimize costs and treatment time, while also maximizing removal rate and electrode life.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DYNAMEAU in view of US Pat. No. 5,271,814 to Metzler (hereinafter referred to as “METZLER”).
Regarding claim 8, while DYNAMEAU teaches an electrocoagulation treatment involving submerged electrodes (see DYNAMEAU at page 3, middle paragraph), DYNAMEAU fails to explicitly teach the method further comprising monitoring the temperature of the water to be treated and adjusting the electrical power from the DC drive to maintain the temperature below a target temperature as claimed.
However, METZLER teaches an electrocoagulation device for the treatment of a liquid containing contaminants in which a temperature of the water to be treated and the treated water is monitored (see METZLER at Abstract; see also METZLER at col. 4 lines 3-10). Moreover, METZLER teaches the monitoring of the temperature of the water to be treated and the temperature of the treated water exiting the device as a means of indirectly monitoring voltage and ensuring efficient operation of the electrocoagulation device (see METZLER at col. 3 line 43-col. 4 line 2).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the measurement of the temperature change of the water being treated could be used as a measure of efficient energy usage of the electrocoagulation process and further have adjusted the electrical power being supplied by the DC drive when the temperature went above a set threshold value or was much higher than the incoming water temperature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of DYNAMEAU so as to further include a step of measuring the temperature of the water to be treated, i.e. the incoming water, and comparing that to the outlet water temperature as taught by METZLER, and when the temperature is seen to be rising above the incoming water temperature to adjust the power being supplied by the DC drive so as to allow for more energy efficiency in the process.
Regarding claim 9, while DYNAMEAU as modified by METZLER teaches the adjustment of the electrical power being supplied by the DC drive (see rejection of claim 8 above), DYNAMEAU in view of METZLER fails to explicitly teach the time taken to adjust the power reading. However, since METZLER teaches the temperature increasing as being an indication of wasted power (see METZLER at col. 3 lines 54-58), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have minimized the time at which the process is being operated in such a state and so would have recognized the importance of minimizing to as short a time as possible to avoid further wasted energy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the response time in the process of DYNAMEAU as modified by METZLER to eliminate waste energy to within a range as claimed.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DYNAMEAU in view of US Pat. No. 7,354,509 to Mehl (hereinafter referred to as “MEHL”).
Regarding claim 10, DYNAMEAU fails to explicitly teach the method further comprising monitoring total suspended solids (TSS) of the water to be treated and adjusting the electrical power from the DC drive to maintain the TSS above a threshold value as claimed.
However, MEHL is directed towards a wastewater treatment system (see MEHL at Abstract) designed to purify the wastewater by inducing in part coagulation of impurities within the waste stream (see MEHL at col. 1 lines 32-48), in which TSS is taught to be one parameter which can be monitored via a probe as an indicator of the degree of treatment (see MEHL at col. 5 lines 4-9).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized TSS as one way of monitoring the effectiveness of the electrocoagulation process of DYNAMEAU. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have used the TSS measurement to adjust the treatment by decreasing the electrical power supplied by the DC direct drive if the TSS value was really low as it could indicate over treatment and also the need to increase the electrical power supplied if the TSS value was too high as it would indicate insufficient treatment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a TSS probe for monitoring the degree of treatment, as taught by MEHL, in the electrocoagulation process of DYNAMEAU as a means of monitoring and then adjusting the electrical power supplied by the DC drive in order to ensure optimum treatment of the waste water which isn’t overtreated or undertreated via the electrocoagulation process.
Regarding claim 11, similar to the rejection of claim 9 above, since the TSS measurement is an indication of the degree of treatment (see teachings of MEHL cited above in the rejection of claim 10), if the degree of treatment appears to be too high, it could indicate a possible waste of electrical power and unnecessary use of the consumable anode, or the operation of the process at a level insufficient to provide the necessary treatment of the wastewater. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have minimized the time at which the process is being operated in such a state and so would have recognized the importance of minimizing this time to as short a time as possible to avoid further wasted energy or insufficient treatment of the wastewater.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the response time in the process of DYNAMEAU as modified by MEHL to eliminate wasted energy and ensure sufficient treatment of the water to within the range as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, DYNAMEAU as modified by MEHL which teaches monitoring TSS as set forth in the rejection of claim 10, would of necessity prioritize TSS over temperature as claimed since DYNAMEAU as modified by MEHL doesn’t teach any temperature measurement. As such, the examiner is treating the limitation as met by the combination as applied to claim 10.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DYNAMEAU in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0131057 to Jansen (hereinafter referred to as “JANSEN”) and US Pub. No. 2016/0016828 to Robinson (hereinafter referred to as “ROBINSON”).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, while DYNAMEAU teaches the electrocoagulation process occurring in a reaction chamber (see DYNAMEAU at page 3, middle paragraph), DYNAMEAU fails to explicitly teach the method further comprising pumping the treated water into a second treatment tank containing a second pair of electrodes in which the second pair of electrodes includes a different electrode material from the first pair.
However, JANSEN teaches an electrocoagulation process (see JANSEN at Abstract) in which the water can be treated by any number of electrocoagulation reaction chambers (see JANSEN at ¶43) but also specifically teaches an embodiment having two electrocoagulation reaction chambers (see JANSEN at ¶44-¶46 and Fig. 5). Additionally, ROBINSON teaches an electroflocculation system for treating a polluted water source having at least two chambers in series with each having a set of electrodes (see ROBINSON at Abstract and Fig. 6 and ¶58). Moreover, ROBINSON teaches the benefit of having two sets of electrodes being that they can provide both Fe and Al metal ions for treating the water since the Fe and Al are each capable of removing different pollutants (see ROBINSON at ¶57). While ROBINSON is directed to electroflocculation and not electrocoagulation, it is noted that the same reason that ROBINSON teaches for providing two reaction chambers in series, i.e. to provide both Al and Fe metal ions, would also be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to electrocoagulation processes since they also sacrificially provide metal ions in an effort to remove contaminants from the water being treated. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have used differing anode materials, such as Al and Fe as taught by ROBINSON, in an electrocoagulation process having a series of treatment chambers as taught by JANSEN.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of DYNAMEAU so as to include at least two electrocoagulation chambers configured in series, as taught by JANSEN, with differing anode materials so as to provide for improved pollutant removal from wastewater as taught by ROBINSON.
Regarding claim 15, DYNAMEAU as modified by JANSEN and ROBINSON teaches a separator between the two electrocoagulation reaction chambers (see JANSEN at Fig. 5 depicting separator 536). Moreover, JANSEN teaches the separator including a filter (see JANSEN at ¶23 teaching the separator 330 being a filter to separate sediment waste).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DYNAMEAU in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0284208 to Wiemers et al., (hereinafter referred to as “WIEMERS”) and US Pat. No. 3,767,046 to Hartkorn (hereinafter referred to as “HARTKORN”).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, while DYNAMEAU teaches an electrocoagulation treatment involving submerged electrodes (see DYNAMEAU at page 3, middle paragraph), DYNAMEAU fails to explicitly teach the method further comprising reversing of the polarity of the electrical power provided to the first pair of electrodes to reduce passivation of a cathode wherein the polarity reversal is in response to a measured increase in electrode voltage as claimed.
However, WIEMERS teaches an electrocoagulation process and further teaches that it was known in the art to reverse the polarity of the electrodes to reduce scaling (see WIEMERS at Abstract and ¶53). While WIEMERS discloses using a directed turbulent flow as a possible alternative to polarity switching of the electrodes for scale removal, it nevertheless clearly teaches polarity reversal as a known process for addressing the potential buildup over time that can occur on the electrodes.
Furthermore, HARTKORN teaches that it is known in the electrolytic art that deposits can be cleaned by polarity reversal and specifically teaches the controlling of the polarity reversal in response to a voltage increase (see HARTKORN at col. 9 lines 33-40).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit in periodically reversing the voltage applied to the electrodes as a means of cleaning deposits or scale from the electrode surfaces. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have operated the process under conditions in which the voltage is monitored and used as an indicator of when polarity switching is required so as to avoid unnecessary downtime and wasted electrical power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of DYNAMEAU so as to include a polarity switching, as taught by WIEMERS, in order to clean the electrodes from any buildup or deposits, and also to have the polarity reversal based on the voltage reading, as taught by HARTKORN, so that the polarity reversal occurs when needed to ensure maximum time treating the waste water and to avoid any unnecessary use of electrical power.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights