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 § 112
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 15 December 2025. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 112 in the Office Action of 15 September 2025 is withdrawn.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14-22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,384,943 to Stoner et al. (Stoner) in view of JP 2005-046715 A to Nakamura et al. (Nakamura).
As to claims 1, 6, 8, 17, 18 and 30, Stoner teaches a method for the treatment of waste water such as the removal of organic contaminants from sewage (i.e. sludge), thus a volume of material comprising a matrix formed of a mixture of liquids and solids, such that the solids provide a surface (Column 1, Lines 7-16).
Stoner teaches that the method comprises, introducing an array of electrodes (44A-44E) into a tank (40) for holding the volume of material (Column 5, Lines 1-12; Figures 1-3); providing connections between a voltage source and the electrode, the voltage source specifically having an output of, at least, 14-16 volts; applying a voltage to the electrode in repeating alternating polarity thus generating a current with a first polarity with a defined current pulse profile followed by a second polarity with a reverse defined current pulse profile, in repeating fashion (Column 5, Line 38 to Column 6, Line 37; Figures 4 and 5).
Stoner teaches that each of the defined current pulses and the reverse defined current pulses comprises a first section (wherein the current goes from zero to the maximum forward/minimum reversed), a second section (wherein the current declines/increases from the maximum/minimum current to a steady current), a fourth section (where the steady current is held for a time period) and a third section (wherein the current goes to zero from the steady current) (Column 6, Lines 48 to Column 7, Line 44; Figures 4 and 5). As can be seen from the figures, Stoner teaches that the first section and the third section occur instantaneously, thus considered to be significantly equivalent to less than 0.5 milliseconds. However, Stoner teaches, for example, that the total pulse length is on the order of 150 seconds with the second section comprising less than a quarter of this time and the fourth section comprises over half of this time (Figure 4), thus failing to teach that the second section occurs with a duration of up to 500 milliseconds.
However, Nakamura also discusses electrolytic water treatment with electrically applied opposite polarity pulses and teaches that the opposite polarity pulses should occur on the order of microseconds to milliseconds in order to allow for the effective generation and utilization of radicals for improving the decomposition of the compounds in the water (Paragraphs 0016 and 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the pulse duration of Stoner with a duration on the order of microseconds to milliseconds in order to allow for the effective generation and utilization of radicals for improving the decomposition of the compounds in the water as taught by Nakamura. Thus rendering obvious a second section with a duration of less than 500 milliseconds.
The combination thus teaching a method which wherein one or more components of the matrix become charged by the current and reverse current (i.e. electrolysis) and wherein free radicals are generated in the matrix, and thus also at the surface of the solids, due to the current and reverse current.
As to claim 2, the combination of Stoner and Nakamura teaches the method of claim 1. Stoner further teaches that the application of the current pulses promotes oxidation of the one or more species for treatment (Column 2, Lines 22-28; Column 9, Lines 17-28).
As to claim 3, the combination of Stoner and Nakamura teaches the method of claim 1. Stoner further teaches that the treatment reduces the volume, concentration and form (i.e. neutralizes and decomposes) of one or more compounds (Column 8, Lines 15-28; Column 9, Lines 17-28).
As to claim 5, the combination of Stoner and Nakamura teaches the method of claim 1. Stoner fails to teach that the voltage is the voltage necessary to achieve an electric field of greater than 0.2V/m across the separation between adjacent electrodes; however, Stoner does specifically teach that the voltage level determined organism neutralization (Column 6, Lines 61 to 64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the voltage, and thus the electric field, dependent on the specific organism composition of the waste to be treated, thus rendering obvious embodiment with an electric field of greater than 0.2V/m.
As to claim 11, the combination of Stoner and Nakamura teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Nakamura teaches that the pulse duration is on the order of microseconds or milliseconds. Nakamura further teaches that the critical radicals generated by this length of duration is determined based on the substance to be decomposed as well as reaction conditions (Paragraph 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine the pulse duration, and thus the second section duration, based upon the desired substance to be decomposed and the reaction conditions, thus rendering obvious a second section duration between 10 and 500 ms.
As to claim 12, the combination of Stoner and Nakamura teaches the method of claim 8. As discussed above, Nakamura teaches that the pulse duration is on the order of microseconds or milliseconds. Nakamura further teaches that the critical radicals generated by this length of duration is determined based on the substance to be decomposed as well as reaction conditions (Paragraph 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine the pulse duration, and thus the fourth section duration, based upon the desired substance to be decomposed and the reaction conditions, thus rendering obvious a fourth section duration greater than 500 ms.
As to claim 14, the combination of Stoner and Nakamura teaches the method of claim 8. Stoner further teaches that the first section of the defined current pulse profile has a maximum current value greater than a maximum current value of the fourth section (Figures 4 and 5), a charge discharge (current decrease) occurring immediately previous the fourth reversed section in the second section.
As to claim 15, the combination of Stoner and Nakamura teaches the method of claim 1. Stoner further teaches that the second section of the reverse defined current pulse profile includes a minimum current value below the inclined current value, the voltage utilized to charge components of the material electrolytically, in view of the natural capacitance of the system (Figures 4 and 5).
As to claim 16, the combination of Stoner and Nakamura teaches the method of claim 8. Stoner further teaches that each section of each pulse of the polarity together contribute to the overall charging of the volume of material and thus contribute to each other (Column 6, Lines 48 to Column 7, Line 44; Figures 4 and 5).
As to claims 19, 21 and 22, the combination of Stoner and Nakamura teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Stoner teaches that the method is applicable to any number of waste treatment streams, and thus streams with different starting compositions and concentrations and required end results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the polarity switching method for the length of time until the organic contaminant removal is as desired for a certain application. Thus, the method of the combination as rendered obvious would achieve the effects claimed based upon the material chosen and the time chosen.
As to claim 20, the combination of Stoner and Nakamura teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Stoner teaches that the method is applicable to any number of waste treatment streams, and thus streams with different starting compositions and concentrations and required end results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the polarity switching method for the length of time, and thus the number of repetitions, until the organic contaminant removal is as desired for a certain application.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stoner and Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,161,435 to Moeglich (Moeglich).
As to claim 4, the combination of Stoner and Nakamura teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Stoner teaches that the treatment method includes the treatment of many applicable fluids, specifically contemplating sewage (Column 1, Lines 7-16); however, Stoner fails to specifically teach the variety of organic materials that could be treated in the sewage specifically. However, Moeglich also discusses the electrolytic treatment of sewage and teaches that a specific organic that can be electrolytically removed via electrolytic oxidation comprises polychlorinated biphenols (Column 4, Lines 46 to 64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the treatment method of Stoner to polychlorinated biphenols present in the waste as taught by Moeglich.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that it would not have been obvious to shorten the polarity reversal of Stoner with the teaching of Nakamura as Stoner teaches that it is “necessary” to reverse the polarity on the order of 150 to 300 seconds to keep the fouling to a level compatible with efficiency. However, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner maintains that Stoner teaches polarity reversal for the purpose of fouling prevention only, and teaching an improved current profile for minimizing downtime associated with polarity reversal and that Nakamura teaches additional reasons for performing polarity reversal on a shorter time frame, the generation of radicals to improve the decomposition potential in the fluid waste. The Examiner maintains that Applicant is too narrowly construing “necessary”, Stoner teaches that fouling prevention is needed and that increasing the time between pulses would result in fouling that would be destroying to the apparatus, however, decreasing the time between pulses would merely result in downtime for efficiency of the process. As modified by Nakamura, more downtime would exists with shorter polarity reversal periods, but would have the benefit of radical generation and as such would still be an obvious benefit and modification. The Examiner thus maintains that this shortening of the pulse duration would have been an obvious improvement to the polarity reversal of Stoner, while maintaining the current profile of Stoner to minimization the downtime associated with this more frequent polarity reversal and preventing fouling.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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