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
Applicant’s election of group I, corresponding to claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 04/07/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected system of wastewater treatment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 8, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: insert “consisting of” after the word “group”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In regard to claim 7, it is unclear what techniques are being referred to as claim 6 does not require both surface coating and doping to be performed.
In regard to claims 8-9, they are dependent on the earlier rejected claim 7.
In regard to claim 11, it is unclear whether there is one catalyst containing platform or if there are multiple different platforms as recited in claim 10 where different forms of the catalyst containing platform are required.
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 1-2 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol., 2016, 2, 261 (henceforth referred to as "Kuntke") in view of US 20180280882 A1 (henceforth referred to as "Hu").
In regard to claim 1, Kuntke teaches in the graphical abstract a cathode chamber and an anode chamber as well as a third chamber that functions as a trap chamber. Kuntke teaches on page 262 paragraph 1 that the flow field on the cathode side of the microbial electrolysis cell functions as a catalyst layer. Kuntke further teaches in the conclusions on page 264 paragraph 4 that the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane has an embodiment directly integrated in the cathode compartment as opposed to the secondary chamber as indicated on their graphical abstract. Ammonia transfers through the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane as indicated on the graphical abstract. Kuntke teaches on page 262 right column paragraph 1 that the acid was recycled, though on page 262 under section 2.2 “BES Operation”, Kuntke clarifies that the sulfuric acid solution is renewed when the ammonium concentration got high enough. Kuntke further teach on page 261 left column paragraph 4 that any suitable acid can be used to acidify the ammonia into ammonium. Kuntke fails to teach the operation of the system without using external acid.
Hu in [0031] teaches an electrodialysis cell that reacts an aqueous solution between electrodes and across ion exchange membranes to generate acid at the anode, lowering the solution pH. Hu further teaches in [0041] that the generated acid of an electrodialysis module is useful for water recovery and chemical isolation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date that the anode compartment of Kuntke would acidify under normal operation. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to connect the acidified anode effluent to the trap chamber in Kuntke’s cell to renew the acid solution.
In regard to claim 2, Hu in [0031] teaches an electrodialysis cell that reacts an aqueous solution between electrodes and across ion exchange membranes to generate acid at the anode, lowering the solution pH. Hu further teaches in [0041] that the generated acid of an electrodialysis module is useful for water recovery and chemical isolation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the anode compartment of Kuntke would acidify under normal operation.
In regard to claim 5, Kuntke teaches on page 262 paragraph 1 that the flow fields which function as the catalyst layer are platinized titanium, a group of metals.
In regard to claim 6, MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." As such, the method of formation of the catalyst layer is not considered to provide a patentable distinction.
In regard to claim 7, MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." As such, the method of surface coating and/or doping is not considered to provide a patentable distinction.
In regard to claim 8, MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." As such, the method of coating is not considered to provide a patentable distinction.
In regard to claim 9, MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." As such, the method of chemical coating is not considered to provide a patentable distinction.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuntke in view of Hu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210079534 A1 (henceforth referred to as "Macfarlane").
In regard to claim 3, Kuntke teaches on page 264 section 3.4 "Energy demand" that "Potential benefits to the energy demand of the ammonia recovery from the produced hydrogen were not considered in our experiments. Furthermore, a detailed energy analysis should also include the energy for pumps (inflow and recycling)." which shows reason to use the energy of the hydrogen produced with the cells of Kuntke. Kuntke fails to teach the redirection of the NH3 and H2 gas containing cathode chamber fluid into the anode chamber.
Macfarlane teaches a method for converting nitrogen to ammonia with an embodiment that captures the ammonia in the form of an ammonium salt in [0076] Macfarlane further teaches in [0117] and figure 11 that there is a preferred configuration of the liquid flow cell in which hydrogen is oxidized at the anode and there is a cathode at which unreacted hydrogen is sent back to the anode. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sent the gas stream comprising hydrogen from the cathode chamber of Kuntke into the anode chamber to reduce hydrogen instead of water, an electrochemical half-reaction with a smaller magnitude applied potential required than the reduction of water.
In regard to claim 4, Kuntke teaches on page 262 right column paragraph 4 that a power supply was used to apply a voltage to the microbial electrolysis cells.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuntke in view of Hu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190144310 A1 (henceforth referred to as "Campbell") and US 20210387874 A1 (henceforth referred to as “Lee”).
In regard to claim 10, the combination of Kuntke and Hu teaches the method of claim 1 but fails to teach the method of physical attachment and the presence of multiple different catalyst platforms.
Campbell teaches in [0046] a flow-through electrode capacitive deionization system involving flowing a solution through electrodes and across membranes and the system is held together by pressure applicators including clips. Therefore, it would have been obvious to attach the components of Kuntke’s system via clips as Kuntke does not specify a means of attaching and clips are reusable, removable, and commonly available.
The combination fails to teach different forms of catalyst containing platforms attached to the hydrophobic gas-diffusion membranes.
Lee teaches an electrochemical system for converting nitrates in wastewater to ammonia and in figures 5A and 5B shows that the system has different options for catalysts and in [0039] - [0043] describes the substrate upon which the catalyst is integrated as including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), a hydrophobic, gas-permeable membrane. Lee further teaches that there are several different catalyst materials and combinations for their system. Kuntke teaches in page 264 under the “Conclusions” header, that the cell of Kuntke could have gas-permeable hydrophobic membranes (such as the PTFE of Lee’s catalyst layers) integrated into the cell to result in a less complex overall treatment system. Therefore it would have been obvious to clip together different combinations of catalyst layers in the combination system to have the convenience of clips and the testable properties of different catalyst layers.
In regard to claim 11, Lee further teaches in [0039] that the substrate upon which the catalyst layer is formed is made of a mesh or other porous material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY SABATOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-9893. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-6:00 M-Th.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/A.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights