S 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 Interpretation
Claims 11-20 have been examined based on the Preliminary Amendment filed on 01/14/2026, which substantially amended independent claim 11 by incorporating subject matter from now canceled claim 1 as originally filed and deleted improper dependence on claim 1 as present in claim 11 as presented in the preliminary amendment filed 08/14/2023.
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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In independent claim 11, “a projection having a height which maintains a width of the fluid channel” is vague and ambiguous as to meaning (does the width of the fluid channel change along the channel, or vary due to fluid pressure sources);
“zone of reduced velocity…to be less than a predetermined length” since it is unclear how flow velocity of fluid is correlated with length of a channel or zone of the channel, and since “reduced velocity” is an ambiguous, vague term as there is no criteria stated what velocity constitutes a reduced velocity;
“a source…configured to deliver…average flow velocity through the fluid channel…” is vague since flow velocity through the fluid channel would inherently depend upon type of fluid(s) being handled, fluid pressure and characteristics of any pump or other fluid-handling components instead of configuration of the source; and
“electrochemical cell configured to produce a product…output a product solution…” would at least in part depend upon composition of the electrolyte solution and other fluid(s) handled by the system, instead of merely electrochemical cell structure or configuration.
In claim 13, it is unclear whether or not the recited “plurality of…cells…” includes the “electrochemical cell” introduced in independent claim 11, and the claim is also vague or unclear as to whether one or more or each of the cells has some or all of the features of such “cell” introduced in claim 11.
In independent claim 14, “the zone…having a length selected to maintain fully-developed flow through the flow path” is vague and ambiguous since “fully-developed flow” is a relative, arbitrary term and would necessarily vary widely depending upon type of fluid being handled in the cell, cell structure dimensions and configuration and operational status and parameters of the cell”.
In claim 16, “the first end cap is dimensioned to maintain an inlet pressure of the electrolyte solution below about 120 kPa” is vague and ambiguous since such inlet fluid pressure would necessarily vary widely depending upon type of fluid being handled in the cell, and dimensions and configuration of other cell components and fluid-handling structure upstream and/or downstream of the electrochemical cell as well as depend upon operational status of the cell”.
In claim 17, “the inlet cone is dimensioned to maintain a pressure drop within the …electrochemical cell between 0 and 19 is vague and ambiguous since such inlet fluid pressure would necessarily vary widely depending upon type of fluid being handled in the cell, and dimensions and configuration of other cell components and fluid-handling structure upstream and/or downstream of the inlet cone, as well as depend upon operational status of the cell”, and would also inherently be variable through the electrochemical cell .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,713,261. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because. The instant claims differ from the claims of ‘261 only by omitting recitation in claims 1 and, thus claim 11, of the separator…projection increasing in width along a length of the projection from a first lengthwise end to a lengthwise position between the first lengthwise end a second lengthwise end of the projection and decreasing in width along the length of the projection from the lengthwise position to the second lengthwise end”.
The instant claims otherwise are encompassed within and otherwise duplicate claims of ‘261, thus being obvious broader genus claims, over the species claims of ‘261, as presented in the following side-by-side comparison:
11. A system comprising:
a self-cleaning electrochemical cell (‘261, claim 1 and claim 11 preambles) comprising:
a cathode and an anode disposed concentrically in a housing about a central axis of the housing (‘261, claim 1 “a cathode” clause and claim 11 incorporating claim 1 limitations);
a fluid channel defined between the cathode and the anode and extending substantially parallel to the central axis (‘261, claim 1 “fluid channel” clause and claim 11 incorporating claim 1 limitations);
) ; and
a separator residing between the cathode and the anode and configured to maintain the fluid channel, the separator including a projection having a height which maintains a width of the fluid channel (‘261, claim 1 “a separator” clause and claim 11 incorporating claim 1 limitations);
the separator configured to maintain a zone of reduced velocity within the fluid channel downstream of the separator to be less than a predetermined length (‘261, claim 1, the 1st “the separator configured” clause), and
the separator configured to maintain an electrolyte solution deviation from mean to be within +_ 18% of an average flow velocity of the electrolyte solution through the fluid channel (‘261, claim 1, the 2nd “the separator configured” clause),
wherein the self-cleaning electrochemical cell further comprises an inlet and an outlet in fluid communication with the fluid channel (‘261, claim 11, “having an inlet…” clause); and
a source of the electrolyte solution having an outlet fluidly connected to the inlet of the self-cleaning electrochemical cell and configured to deliver the electrolyte solution at an average flow velocity through the fluid channel of 2 m/s or greater (‘261, claim 11, “a source” clause),
the self-cleaning electrochemical cell configured to produce a product compound from the electrolyte solution and to output a product solution comprising the product compound (‘261, claim 11, 1st “electrochemical cell configured…” clause),
the self-cleaning electrochemical cell being fluidly connectable to a point of use through the outlet (‘261, claim 11, 1st “electrochemical cell configured…” clause),.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the source of the electrolyte solution comprises at least one of seawater, brackish water, and brine (‘261, claim 12).
13. The system of claim 11, including a plurality of self-cleaning electrochemical cells arranged in series (‘261, claim 13).
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 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King patent 4,443,320 in view of Hegel et al PGPUBS Document US 2007/0284245 (Hegel), and Dietrich patent 5,364,509 (Dietrich). Paragraph numbers of the applied US PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 11, King discloses: A system comprising:
an electrochemical cell (embodiment illustrated in figures 5, 8 and 9 regarding cylindrical electrolytic treater 410, operable to clean impurities from a liquid passing therethrough (column 1, lines 36-50 regarding the treater being operable to remove or clean impurity particles from the liquid passing through the treater and column 3, line 27-column 4, line 6 and column 4, lines 14-23 describing construction of the treater, i.e. “cell”) comprising:
a cathode and an anode disposed concentrically in a housing about a central axis of the housing (figures 5, 8-11 and column 3, lines 45-60 and column 4, lines 14-22 regarding inner electrode 254 and outer, concentric electrode 262, within housing 244, and column 4, line 64-column 5, line 9 regarding one of such electrodes operating as a cathode and the other electrode as an anode, such as to remove impurity products from the liquid);
a fluid channel defined between the cathode and the anode and extending substantially parallel to the central axis (figures 5, 8 and 9 illustrating flow passing into a chamber or channel created between the cathode and anode from inlet 250 and discussed at column 3, lines 27-44) ; and
a separator residing between the cathode and the anode and configured to maintain the fluid channel, the separator including a projection having a height which maintains a width of the fluid channel (cylindrical liner 464 separating outer electrode 462 from flow through the above channel, and having projections 466 having a manufactured or cut-and-punched, maintained height corresponding to a proportion of the width of the channel, inherently facilitating maintaining of the position of outer electrode 462, thus facilitating maintaining of the channel width, as shown in figures 5, 8 and 9 and described at column 4, lines 14-20);
the separator configured to maintain a zone of reduced velocity within the fluid channel downstream of the separator to be less than a predetermined length (the channel extending into and narrowing into outlet end cap, which is downstream of the separator and electrodes, for flow into outlet 252, which is less than the predetermined length of the remainder of the channel extending through a remainder of housing 210 or 410, as illustrated in figures 4 and 8 and described at column 3, lines 26-37, such end cap thus being a maintained zone of reduced flow velocity within the fluid channel); and,
wherein the electrochemical cell further comprises an inlet and an outlet in fluid communication with the fluid channel (inlet 250 and outlet 252 in inlet and outlet end caps 248 and 246, respectively, illustrated in figures 4 and 8 and described at column 3, lines 26-37).
Claim 11, and thus claims dependent therefrom, differ from King by requiring that the electrochemical cell is “self-cleaning”.
Hegel teaches an electrolytic water or wastewater treating cell comprising anode (anodic) and cathode (cathodic) electrodes, operable to remove a plurality of impurities or undesirable substances from the water [0003, 0009, 0025-0027], in which a control system is employed so as to periodically reverse polarity between the electrodes ([0014 “electrical circuit to control…to reverse polarity…”] and [0031 re controller 6 switching polarity as programmed]).
Such reversal of polarity is taught as effective to remove buildup of impurities or substances from the electrode surfaces, particularly deposited minerals [0011] so as to clean the electrodes, and render the cell as “self-cleaning”.
It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating wastewater by electrolysis to have augmented the King system or electrolysis apparatus, with such a control system operable to periodically reverse the electrode polarity as necessary, as taught by Hegel.
Such augmentation would have imparted the obvious advantage or improvement to the King apparatus of maintaining the electrodes in service or operation, without the need to regularly shut-down apparatus operation to clean or replace the electrodes, which would otherwise be required.
These claims also differ by requiring a source of electrolyte solution having an outlet fluidly connected to the inlet of the self-cleaning electrochemical cell, and configured to deliver the electrolyte solution at an average flow velocity through the fluid channel of 2 m/s or greater.
King also discloses the electrolysis apparatus described as being employed for wastewater treatment (column 1, lines 15-21 and 36-41).
Dietrich teaches an electrolysis apparatus configured to treat wastewater in which the wastewater is directed to be mixed with salt-containing electrolyte from a source of electrolysis solution, prior to introduction into an electrolyzer 248 (column 4, lines 50-62). Dietrich also teaches an electrolytic system utilizing a controlled pump for maintaining a pressurized flow velocity of a mixture of wastewater and electrolyte solution to electrolyzer 24, thus suggesting an average flow velocity through the channel of 2 m/s or greater (column 4, lines 59-62).
Dietrich teaches that such mixing of electrolyte from an electrolysis solution source (saltwater passing through feed line 22) with the wastewater is effective to remove wastewater constituents of BOD, COD (chemical oxygen demand) and particulate solids, to levels well below what is mandated by Federal regulations, as well as improve the sterility of the treated wastewater (column 4, lines 22-49).
In addition, average flow velocity of electrolyte solution or other fluid through the fluid channel and any deviation thereof are deemed to be results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of fluid in the electrochemical cell, at a flow velocity that is effective to allow adequate residence time in the cell to remove impurities or unwanted substances from the fluid.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the King system, by providing a fluidic connection to a source of seawater electrolysis solution of electrolyte-containing water, for mixing with the wastewater being treated at the claimed flow velocity, as taught or suggested by Dietrich, in order to remove wastewater constituents of BOD, COD (chemical oxygen demand) and particulate solids, to levels well below what is mandated by Federal regulations, as well as improve the sterility of the treated wastewater.
Claim 11 and claims dependent therefrom, also differ by requiring the separator being configured to maintain an electrolyte solution velocity deviation from mean to be within +_ 18% of an average flow velocity of the electrolyte solution through the fluid channel.
Dietrich and Hegel together suggest modifying the King system to have such flow velocity, (see Dietrich teaching of an electrolytic system utilizing a controlled pump for maintaining flow velocity of a mixture of wastewater and electrolyte solution to electrolyzer 24 (column 4, lines 59-62) and Hegel teaching of maintaining a controlled flow rate or velocity, such as 6 or 7 gallons per minute ([0040] and [0043]) and teaching of flow, in general, being controlled by a system controller 6 [0027, 0030 and 0031] ).
In addition, average flow velocity of electrolyte solution or other fluid through the fluid channel and any deviation thereof are deemed to be results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of fluid in the electrochemical cell, at a flow velocity that is effective to allow adequate residence time in the cell to remove impurities or unwanted substances from the fluid.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Claim 11 and claims dependent therefrom, also differ from King also lacks disclosure of the self-cleaning electrochemical cell configured to produce a product compound from the electrolyte solution and to output a product solution comprising the product compound, the self-cleaning electrochemical cell being fluidly connectable to a point of use through the outlet.
However, Dietrich also teaches that modification of the King system to employ a fluidic connection to a source of seawater electrolysis solution of electrolyte-containing water, for mixing with the wastewater being treated, would make the system be so configured to generate or produce a hypochlorite product (column 4, lines 38-40) which is output through electrolyzer 24 effluent through outlet line 24 connected to a holding tank point of storage 28 (column 5, lines 1-5).
Claim recitation of “outputting of product to a point of use” has little patentable weight, since such recitation merely concerns intended system functionality or intended use, without introducing any explicitly recited system structure.
For claim 12, Dietrich further teaches wherein the source of the electrolyte solution comprises at least one of seawater, brackish water, and brine (column 4, lines 1-3).
For claim 13, Hegel further teaches that electrolysis systems for treating water may include a plurality of self-cleaning electrochemical cells arranged in series ([0009 re “Likewise it may be convenient to pass the water through a plurality of chambers, arranged in series or in parallel…to treat large quantities of flowing water”], also see [0025] and [0047]).
For independent claim 14, King discloses: An electrochemical cell (embodiment illustrated in figures 5, 8 and 9 regarding cylindrical electrolytic treater 410, operable to clean impurities from a liquid passing therethrough (column 1, lines 36-50 regarding the treater being operable to remove or clean impurity particles from the liquid passing through the treater and column 3, line 27-column 4, line 6 and column 4, lines 14-23 describing construction of the treater, i.e. “cell”) comprising:
a cathode and an anode disposed concentrically in a housing about a central axis of the housing (figures 5, 8-11 and column 3, lines 45-60 and column 4, lines 14-22 regarding inner electrode 254 and outer, concentric electrode 262, within housing 244, and column 4, line 64-column 5, line 9 regarding one of such electrodes operating as a cathode and the other electrode as an anode, such as to remove impurity products from the liquid) ;
a fluid channel defined between the cathode and the anode and extending substantially parallel to the central axis (figures 5, 8 and 9 illustrating flow passing into a chamber or channel created between the cathode and anode from inlet 250 and discussed at column 3, lines 27-44);
a first end cap 248 coupled to a first end of the housing 244 and a second end cap 246 coupled to a second end of the housing 244/210 (see figure 4 and column 3, lines 27-37),
each of the first and second end caps including a substantially centrally located aperture (figures 8 and 9 illustrating centrally located apertures on both the upper, 2nd and lower, 1st end cap to enable connection to electrical circuit components 582 and 594 and to enable coupling to a support in a support base, respectively);
each end cap having a fluid conduit in fluid communication with the fluid channel (tangential fluid inlet and outlet tube conduits 250 and 252, respectively communicating fluid to and from the respective end caps to and from the fluid channel as illustrated in figures 8 and 9 and discussed at column 3, lines 26-44),
the fluid conduit of the first end cap comprising a zone of a first radius and a zone of a second radius greater than the first radius (see also figure 5 illustrating narrowing of the inlet tube fluid conduit 250 from a wider to a narrower radius as it passes through the side wall of the end cap into the fluid channel ; and
an inlet cone disposed within the fluid conduit of the first end cap and configured to define a flow path for an electrolyte solution into the fluid channel (see again figures 5 and 8 regarding conical shape of the 1st end cap providing an inlet into the fluid channel which widens within the conical shape widening towards the cylindrical, housing 244).
Claim 14, and claims dependent therefrom, differ from King by requiring that the electrochemical cell is “self-cleaning”.
Hegel teaches an electrolytic water or wastewater treating cell comprising anode (anodic) and cathode (cathodic) electrodes, operable to remove a plurality of impurities or undesirable substances from the water [0003, 0009, 0025-0027], in which a control system is employed so as to periodically reverse polarity between the electrodes ([0014 “electrical circuit to control…to reverse polarity…”] and [0031 re controller 6 switching polarity as programmed]).
Such reversal of polarity is taught as effective to remove buildup of impurities or substances from the electrode surfaces, particularly deposited minerals [0011] so as to clean the electrodes, and render the cell as “self-cleaning”.
It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating wastewater by electrolysis to have augmented the King system or electrolysis apparatus, with such a control system operable to periodically reverse the electrode polarity as necessary, as taught by Hegel.
Such augmentation would have imparted the obvious advantage or improvement to the King apparatus of maintaining the electrodes in service or operation, without the need to regularly shut-down apparatus operation to clean or replace the electrodes, which would otherwise be required.
These claims also differ by requiring the flow path being configured to comprise a flow of electrolyte solution having an outlet fluidly connected to the inlet of the self-cleaning electrochemical cell.
King also discloses the electrolysis apparatus described as being employed for wastewater treatment (column 1, lines 15-21 and 36-41).
Dietrich teaches an electrolysis apparatus configured to treat wastewater in which the wastewater is directed to be mixed with salt-containing electrolyte from a source of electrolysis solution, prior to introduction into an electrolyzer 248 (column 4, lines 50-62).
Dietrich teaches that such mixing of electrolyte from an electrolysis solution source (saltwater passing through feed line 22) with the wastewater is effective to remove wastewater constituents of BOD, COD (chemical oxygen demand) and particulate solids, to levels well below what is mandated by Federal regulations, as well as improve the sterility of the treated wastewater (column 4, lines 22-49).
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the King system, by providing a fluidic connection to a source of seawater electrolysis solution of electrolyte-containing water, for mixing with the wastewater being treated, as taught or suggested by Dietrich, in order to remove wastewater constituents of BOD, COD (chemical oxygen demand) and particulate solids, to levels well below what is mandated by Federal regulations, as well as improve the sterility of the treated wastewater.
These claims also differ by requiring the zone of the second radius having a length selected to maintain fully-developed flow through the flow path.
Dietrich also teaches an electrolysis apparatus configured to treat wastewater in which the wastewater is directed to be mixed with salt-containing electrolyte from a source of electrolysis solution, prior to introduction into an electrolyzer 248 (column 4, lines 50-62).
Dietrich and Hegel together suggest modifying the King system to have such flow velocity, (see Dietrich teaching of an electrolytic system utilizing a controlled pump for maintaining a given “fully developed” flow velocity of a mixture of wastewater and electrolyte solution to electrolyzer 24 (column 4, lines 59-62) and Hegel teaching of maintaining a controlled flow rate or velocity, such as 6 or 7 gallons per minute ([0040] and [0043]) and teaching of flow, in general, being controlled by a system controller 6 [0027, 0030 and 0031] ).
It would have thus been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the system of King, by providing a controlled pump, controlled by a system controller, so as to provided fully developed flow, as cumulatively taught by Hegel and Dietrich, in order to achieve the inherent advantage of enabling an optimum flow rate for processing and purifying the wastewater, while removing an adequate amount of impurities from the wastewater as it passes through the system.
For claim 15, King further discloses or suggests wherein the zone of the second radius of the 1st or inlet end cap has a length between 1 and 10 times a hydraulic diameter of the flow path (evident from the conical or frustoconical shapes of the end cap 248 shown in figures 4 and 8 and shape of flow path from inlet conduit 250 into the end cap and fluid channel defined between the electrodes in figure 5 and 11).
In addition, the proportion of length of radius of inlet cone of first, inlet end cap to the hydraulic diameter of the flow path is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of fluid in the electrochemical cell, at a flow velocity that is effective to allow adequate residence time in the cell to remove impurities or unwanted substances from the fluid.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
For claim 16, King further discloses wherein the fluid conduit of the first or inlet end cap 248 is dimensioned to maintain a given inlet pressure (evident from the conical or frustoconical shapes of the end cap 248 shown in figures 4 and 8 and shape of flow path from inlet conduit 250 into the end cap and fluid channel defined between the electrodes in figure 5 and 11). King however lacks disclosure of a specific inlet pressure or of the inlet pressure of the electrolyte solution below about 120 kPa.
Dietrich and Hegel together suggest modifying the King system to have a pressurized flow and thus have a controlled inlet pressure of up to about 120 kPa, (see Dietrich teaching of an electrolytic system utilizing a controlled pump for maintaining a given “fully developed” flow velocity of a mixture of wastewater and electrolyte solution to electrolyzer 24 (column 4, lines 59-62) and Hegel teaching of maintaining a controlled flow rate or velocity, such as 6 or 7 gallons per minute ([0040] and [0043]) and teaching of flow, in general, thus corresponding pressure being controlled by a system controller 6 [0027, 0030 and 0031] ).
In addition, the claimed inlet pressure is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of fluid in the electrochemical cell, at a flow velocity that is effective to allow adequate residence time in the cell to remove impurities or unwanted substances from the fluid.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
For claim 17, King further discloses wherein the fluid conduit of the first or inlet end cap 248 forming a widening “inlet cone” and smooth, cylindrical shape of the fluid channel between the electrodes are inherently dimensioned to maintain a given relatively low pressure drop through the channel of the cell (evident from the conical or frustoconical shapes of the end cap 248 shown in figures 4 and 8 and shape of flow path from inlet conduit 250 into the end cap and smooth, cylindrical fluid channel defined between the electrodes in figure 5 and 11). King however lacks disclosure of a specific pressure drop of between 0 and 19 kPa .
In addition, the claimed pressure drop is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of fluid in the electrochemical cell, at a flow velocity that is effective to allow adequate residence time in the cell to remove impurities or unwanted substances from the fluid.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Dietrich and Hegel together suggest modifying the King system to have such a velocity of a mixture of wastewater and electrolyte solution to electrolyzer 24 (column 4, lines 59-62) and Hegel teaching of maintaining a controlled flow rate or velocity, such as 6 or 7 gallons per minute ([0040] and [0043]) and teaching of flow, in general, thus corresponding pressure and effected pressure drop being controlled by a system controller 6 [0027, 0030 and 0031] ).
For claim 18, King further discloses or suggests wherein the inlet cone is a right circular cone having an apex angle of between 20° and 90° (figure 4 illustrates a cone shape of a truncated right circular cone with apex angle of about 90 degrees).
In addition, the claimed angle of the inlet cone of the 1st, inlet end cap is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of fluid in the electrochemical cell, at a flow velocity that is effective to allow adequate residence time in the cell to remove impurities or unwanted substances from the fluid.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
For claim 20, King further discloses or suggests the system further comprising an outlet frustum disposed within the fluid conduit of the second end cap and configured to define a flow path for the electrolyte solution from the fluid channel out of the self-cleaning electrochemical cell (figures 5, 8 and 9 illustrating an outlet flow path or frustum through the 2nd outlet end cap defining a flow path for solution and/or other fluid having passed through the channel between anode and cathode).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of further recitation of wherein the inlet cone is a right circular cone having an apex angle of between 40 and 60 degrees. King only teaches inlet and outlet end caps or cones which are axially aligned with the housing and fluid channel axes, and thus have an apex angle of substantially 90 degrees, thus teaching away from the claimed obtuse angle which would direct flow into the fluid channel between the electrodes from other than an axial orientation.
Other cited prior art including Daly et al PGPUBS Document US 20050183949 and Peters et al also suggest end caps or fittings which are axially aligned with the long axes of tubular electrolytic cells.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular interest, Nakamura et al PGPUBS Document US 2003/01022211, Sullivan et al PGPUBS Document US 2013/0146474 and Patent Publication CN 203095686 and the accompanying Escapenet translation concern electrolytic cells or systems comprising concentric cathodes and anodes and fluid channels along the long axis of housings between the electrodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
01/27/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773