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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have not changed the scope of the claimed invention, and the previous prior art rejection still reads upon the claims.
On page 1 of the Remarks section, Applicant discusses the previous 112(b) rejections to the claims. The Examiner has withdrawn a couple of 112(b) rejections, but notes that some previous 112(b) rejections remain. Specifically, the Examiner indicates that Claim 1 recites “a flow anode”, which if the same as the previous recitation, should be phrased in a similar manner, and use “the/said” as an article to demonstrate that they are the same. A similar observation also applies to Claim 8. Thus, these rejections still stand.
On pages 2-4, Applicant argues against the previous 103 prior art rejection of the claims regarding the previous prior art references used such as Murphy et al., (“Murphy”, US 5,460,705), Nishimura et al., (“Nishimura”, US 6,939,458), and Menth et al., (“Menth”, US 4,416,747). Specifically, Applicant argues that the disclosed conductive particles in Nishimura have varying sizes and diameters in relation to their shapes. The Examiner notes the term “particle size” is very broad, and that for spheres or rounded particles, their size is most typically their diameter, and for other shapes, their size can vary between length or width or diameter. The disclosed range of diameters or sizes overlaps with the claimed range, anticipating those values over the overlapping ranges.
Applicant then notes that Menth’s anode/cathode meshes serve as anode and cathode current collectors, with certain mesh sizes, and argues that the purposes of these meshes is “only to achieve good current distribution” not “to allow flowing anode particles to pass through the current collectors” as desired. Applicant concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art has no incentive to modify the device of Murphy if it is only for good current distribution, not for flowing particles therethrough. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Also, in response to applicant's argument, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The Examiner concludes that rationales found in the prior art and relevant to the disclosed and/or claimed technology are valid even if different from those specifically desired by Applicant. Thus, this remark is considered unpersuasive.
On page 3, Applicant argues that the references used do not achieve the desired technical effects of the claimed invention, including not using an ion exchange membrane. The Examiner notes that as already indicated above, one of ordinary skill can look to the prior art and find other relevant reasons to incorporate or make obvious the disclosed features of these references rather than those specifically desired or put forth by Applicant. The Examiner also reiterates the specific rationales already put forth in the obviousness statements from each secondary references. Thus, the Examiner finds this remark unpersuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues that additional secondary reference DeNora does not make up for the technical effects in the claimed invention which the other discussed prior art references allegedly do not disclose. Again, the Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks unpersuasive regarding the combination of Nishimura and Menth with Murphy as indicated above, thus this remark is also moot. This observation also applies to the prior art rejections of the dependent claims.
The previous prior art rejection still stands.
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.
Claim 1, 8 and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a flow anode” on line 16. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a screen current collector-based flow anode” on lines 1-2, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “an electrochemical treatment of wastewater” and “a screen current collector-based flow anode” on lines 1-2. It is not clear if these limitations are the same as “an/the electrochemical treatment of wastewater” and “a/the screen current collector-based flow anode” of Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
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) 1, 3-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al., (“Murphy”, US 5,460,705), in view of Nishimura et al., (“Nishimura”, US 6,939,458), and in further view of Menth et al., (“Menth”, US 4,416,747), as evidenced by “Mesh Size”, (“Mesh Size”, “Kramer Industries, Inc.”, https://www.kramerindustriesonline.com/resources/mesh-size/, obtained from Web 12/18/2025, 4 total pages).
Regarding Claims 1, 3-7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 & 18, Murphy discloses a device for an electrochemical treatment of a wastewater, (See column 12, lines 52-64, See column 15, lines 63-67, Murphy), with a screening current collector-based flow anode, (Anode 20, See Figure 2, 6, 7, See column 14, lines 47-49, Murphy), comprising: a shell, wherein an interior of the shell is a cavity structure, (End Plates 34/36 with interior and slot 59, See Figure 2, 6, 7, See column 14, lines 47-62), and the shell is provided with a water inlet and a water outlet each communicating with the cavity structure, (Inlet 28 and Outlet 32, See Figure 2, 6, 7, See column 14, lines 11-16, See column 15, lines 46-57, Murphy); and the water inlet is configured to feed the wastewater to be treated, and the water outlet is configured to discharge purified recycled water, (Inlet 28 and Outlet 32, See column 14, lines 11-16, See column 15, lines 46-57, Murphy); a screening current collector structure, wherein the screening current collector structure comprises a screening anode current collector and a cathode current collector, (Mesh 52 & 54, See Figures 2, 6, & 7), a cathode/anode separator is provided between the screening anode current collector and the cathode current collector, (Electrolyte 12 between Meshes 52 & 54, See Figures 2, 6 & 7, See column 13, lines 44-49, Murphy), and the screening anode current collector and the cathode current collector are each connected to an external circuit, (See column 13, lines 3-9; See column 15, lines 22-25; See column 14, lines 50-54, Murphy); an anode cell and a cathode cell, wherein the anode cell and the cathode cell are formed through a division of the cavity structure by the screening current collector structure, (Electrolyte 12 divides Mesh 54/Anode 20 into one compartment (anode cell) and Mesh 52/Cathode 16 into another compartment (cathode cell), See Figure 2, 6, 7, See column 14, lines 47-63, Murphy), and an electrolyte is provided in each of the anode cell and the cathode cell, (See column 14, lines 11-16, See column 14, lines 3-10); and a flow anode, (Anode 20 in this portion/compartment of overall Cell, See Figure 2, 6, 7, See column 14, lines 47-49, Murphy); wherein an unidirectional anodic bias voltage is applied to the screening current collector structure to allow a polarization of the flow anode in contact with the screening current collector structure, (See column 2, lines 66-67, column 3, lines 1-5), and a water oxidation reaction is further allowed on a surface of the flow anode at a low voltage, (See column 2, lines 66-67, column 3, lines 1-2, See column 6, lines 30-31, See column 13, lines 60-65), to produce an adsorbed hydroxyl, (See column 2, lines 33-50), to make the flow anode conduct a filtering solid-liquid separation (SLS) on a surface of the screening current collector structure, such that a particulate space stacking effect is formed to allow an efficient removal of pollutants and an effective interception of the flow anode, (See column 15, lines 63-67, column 16, lines 1-10, See column 2, lines 45-50; organic/biological material/contaminants are treated); and wherein the screening anode current collector has a porous structure, (See column 14, lines 47-57, Murphy).
Murphy does not explicitly disclose that its anode and cathode meshes are anode and cathode current collectors, the flow anode suspended in the cell or the screening anode current collector has a pore size smaller than a particle size of the flow anode, and the flow anode has the particle size in a range of 0.1 pm to 1,000 micron.
Nishimura discloses that the flow anode is suspended in the cell, (See column 12, lines 20-25, Nishimura), and the flow anode has the particle size in a range of 0.1 micron to 1,000 micron, (See column 14, lines 54-61, Nishimura; anticipates the claimed range from 0.5 mm or less, which overlaps from 0.1 micron to 500 micron). Additional features of this embodiment are included as part of the overall combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Murphy by incorporating that the flow anode has the particle size in a range of 0.1 micron to 1,000 micron as in Nishimura because “the surface area of electrodes can be substantially increased by incorporating electrically conductive particles into an influent….so that the conductive particles present in the influent can substantially serve as an electrode”, (See column 12, lines 20-26, Nishimura), so that “a large amount of electric power can be supplied…to greatly improve throughput and process efficiency”, (See column 12, lines 53-57, Nishimura).
Modified Murphy does not disclose that its anode and cathode meshes are anode and cathode current collectors or the screening anode current collector has a pore size smaller than the particle size of the flow anode.
Menth discloses its anode and cathode meshes are anode and cathode current collectors, (Collectors 4, See Figure 1, See column 2, lines 3-6, Menth), and the screening anode current collector has a pore size smaller than the particle size of the flow anode, (See column 3, lines 50-59; the mesh for the current collectors is 70 mesh which converts to 210 microns as evidenced by “Mesh Size”, which is smaller than the disclosed range of Nishimura from 210 to 500 microns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Murphy by incorporating its anode and cathode meshes are anode and cathode current collectors and the screening anode current collector has a pore size smaller than the particle size of the flow anode as in Menth for “ensuring that a good current-distribution is obtained over the membrane [electrolyte]”, (See column 2, lines 3-5, Menth).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 3: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 1, wherein the device is a flat plate-type device, (See column 7, lines 14-16, Murphy); and the screening anode current collector, the cathode current collector, and the cathode/anode separator are arranged in parallel inside the shell in a clamping manner, (See column 7, lines 14-16, Murphy).
Claim 4: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 1, further comprising: an anode terminal post, wherein the anode terminal post is connected to the screening anode current collector and extends out of the shell, (Terminal/Bushbar 46, See Figure 2, 6, 7, See column 14, lines 37-46, Murphy); and a cathode terminal post, wherein the cathode terminal post is connected to the cathode current collector and extends out of the shell, (Terminal/Bushbar 48, See Figure 2, 6, 7, See column 14, lines 37-46, Murphy); and the screening anode current collector and the cathode current collector are connected to the external circuit through the anode terminal post and the cathode terminal post, respectively, (See column 14, lines 43-46, See column 13, lines 4-10, Murphy).
Claim 5: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 1, wherein a material of the screening anode current collector is selected from the group consisting of SnO2-Sb, PbO2, a flexible carbon material, a platinum mesh, IrTa, and IrRu, (See column 13, lines 36-43, Murphy; lead oxide).
Claim 6: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 1, wherein a material of the cathode current collector is selected from the group consisting of a titanium mesh, a platinum mesh, and a stainless steel mesh, (See column 13, lines 32-35, Murphy, platinum composition; See column 2, lines 6-15, Menth, titanium mesh).
Claim 7: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 1, wherein a material of the flow anode is selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide and a carbon material, (See column 13, lines 36-43, Murphy; lead oxide).
Claim 11: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 3, wherein a material of the screening anode current collector is selected from the group consisting of SnO2-Sb, PbO2, a flexible carbon material, a platinum mesh, IrTa, and IrRu, (See column 13, lines 36-43, Murphy; lead oxide).
Claim 12: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 4, wherein a material of the screening anode current collector is selected from the group consisting of SnO2-Sb, PbO2, a flexible carbon material, a platinum mesh, IrTa, and IrRu, (See column 13, lines 36-43, Murphy; lead oxide).
Claim 14: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 3, wherein a material of the cathode current collector is selected from the group consisting of a titanium mesh, a platinum mesh, and a stainless steel mesh, (See column 13, lines 32-35, Murphy, platinum composition; See column 2, lines 6-15, Menth, titanium mesh).
Claim 15: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 4, wherein a material of the cathode current collector is selected from the group consisting of a titanium mesh, a platinum mesh, and a stainless steel mesh, (See column 13, lines 32-35, Murphy, platinum composition; See column 2, lines 6-15, Menth, titanium mesh).
Claim 17: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 3, wherein a material of the flow anode is selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide and a carbon material, (See column 13, lines 36-43, Murphy; lead oxide).
Claim 18: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 4, wherein a material of the flow anode is selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide and a carbon material, (See column 13, lines 36-43, Murphy; lead oxide).
Regarding Claims 8, 9 & 20, Murphy discloses a process for an electrochemical treatment of wastewater with a screening current collector-based flow anode, wherein the process is implemented by the device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 1, and comprises the following steps: introducing the wastewater through the water inlet, (Inlet 28 and Outlet 32, See Figure 2, 6, 7, See column 14, lines 11-16, See column 15, lines 46-57, Murphy), and starting stirring to keep an anode material suspended, (See column 17, lines 35-47, Nishimura); applying the unidirectional anodic bias voltage to the screening current collector structure to allow the polarization of the flow anode in contact with the screening current collector structure, (See column 2, lines 66-67, column 3, lines 1-5), and further allowing the water oxidation reaction on the surface of the flow anode at the low voltage, (See column 2, lines 66-67, column 3, lines 1-2, See column 6, lines 30-31, See column 13, lines 60-65), to produce the adsorbed hydroxyl (See column 2, lines 33-50), to make the flow anode conduct the filtering SLS on the surface of the screening current collector structure, such that the particulate space stacking effect is formed to allow the efficient removal of pollutants and the effective interception of the flow anode, (See column 15, lines 63-67, column 16, lines 1-10, See column 2, lines 45-50; organic/biological material/contaminants are treated); and discharging the purified recycled water through the water outlet, (Inlet 28 and Outlet 32, See column 14, lines 11-16, See column 15, lines 46-57, Murphy).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 9: The process for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 8, further comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of the following technical features: A. an applied anode potential is 0.5 V to 2.0 V vs a standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) potential, (See column 20, lines 59-64 and See column 20, lines 27-35; actual potential applied is 3 V and standard potential is 1.23 V, the difference is 1.73 V, anticipating the claimed range at this value); B. the device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode operates in a continuous flow mode, and a water flux of the screening anode current collector is 0 m3/m2/h to 1 m3/m2/h, (optional, not required); and C. a magnetic stirring or a mechanical stirring at a stirring rate of 100 rpm to 250 rpm is adopted to keep the flow anode suspended in the electrolyte, (optional, not required).
Claim 20: The process for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 8, wherein the device is a flat plate-type device, (See column 7, lines 14-16, Murphy); and the screening anode current collector, the cathode current collector, and the cathode/anode separator are arranged in parallel inside the shell in a clamping manner, (See column 7, lines 14-16, Murphy).
Claim(s) 2, 10, 13, 16 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al., (“Murphy”, US 5,460,705), in view of Nishimura et al., (“Nishimura”, US 6,939,458), and in further view of Menth et al., (“Menth”, US 4,416,747), in further view of DeNora et al., (“DeNora”, US 4,177,116).
Regarding Claims 2, 10, 13 & 16, modified Murphy discloses the device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the device is a tube-in-tube device; and the cathode/anode separator and the cathode current collector are wound sequentially around the screening anode current collector. Nishimura suggests its device is a tube-in-tube device, and the cathode current collector is wound sequentially around the screening anode current collector, (See column 2, lines 16-31, Nishimura).
DeNora discloses wherein the device is a tube-in-tube device; and the cathode/anode separator and the cathode current collector are wound sequentially around the screening anode current collector, (See column 4, lines 44-68, column 5, lines 1-11, DeNora).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of modified Murphy by incorporating wherein the device is a tube-in-tube device; and the cathode/anode separator and the cathode current collector are wound sequentially around the screening anode current collector because the separator “preferably tubular, is…fastened” and “this fastening is particularly easy and forms a perfect hydraulic seal between the membranes and the…anodes which is difficult to obtain in conventional filter press cells”, (See column 4, lines 66-68, column 5, lines 1-5, DeNora).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 10: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 2, wherein a material of the screening anode current collector is selected from the group consisting of SnO2-Sb, PbO2, a flexible carbon material, a platinum mesh, IrTa, and IrRu, (See column 13, lines 36-43, Murphy; lead oxide).
Claim 13: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 2, wherein a material of the cathode current collector is selected from the group consisting of a titanium mesh, a platinum mesh, and a stainless steel mesh, (See column 13, lines 32-35, Murphy, platinum composition; See column 2, lines 6-15, Menth, titanium mesh).
Claim 16: The device for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 2, wherein a material of the flow anode is selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide and a carbon material, (See column 13, lines 36-43, Murphy; lead oxide).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Murphy discloses the process for the electrochemical treatment of the wastewater with the screening current collector-based flow anode according to claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the device is a tube-in-tube device; and the cathode/anode separator and the cathode current collector are wound sequentially around the screening anode current collector. Nishimura suggests its device is a tube-in-tube device, and the cathode current collector is wound sequentially around the screening anode current collector, (See column 2, lines 16-31, Nishimura).
DeNora discloses wherein the device is a tube-in-tube device; and the cathode/anode separator and the cathode current collector are wound sequentially around the screening anode current collector, (See column 4, lines 44-68, column 5, lines 1-11, DeNora).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of modified Murphy by incorporating wherein the device is a tube-in-tube device; and the cathode/anode separator and the cathode current collector are wound sequentially around the screening anode current collector because the separator “preferably tubular, is…fastened” and “this fastening is particularly easy and forms a perfect hydraulic seal between the membranes and the…anodes which is difficult to obtain in conventional filter press cells”, (See column 4, lines 66-68, column 5, lines 1-5, DeNora).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights