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 .
Status of Claims
In the instant case, claims 1-18 are pending and under examination
Abstract
The abstract is objected to due to exceeding the word limit at a word count of 158. The abstract is limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The abstract is objected to due to undefined acronyms. Sentence 1 of the abstract references PVA without first defining the acronym.
Specification
The specification is objected to due to undefined acronyms. Paragraph 1 references “COD”, paragraph 7 references “TMAc”, and paragraph 12 references “TMAH” without first defining the acronym.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 17, and 18 are objected to due to undefined acronyms.
Claims 1 and 6 reference “PVA” without first providing a definition. For purposes of examination, PVA will be interpreted as an acronym for polyvinyl alcohol as defined in the specification.
Claims 17 and 18 reference “DSA” without first providing a definition. For purposes of examination, DSA will be interpreted as an acronym for dimensionally stable anode as defined in the specification. For claim interpretation purposes, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a DSA electrode is an electrode.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
Sufficiency of disclosure in prior-filed provisional applications
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed provisional applications (application No. 63414910, 63411639, and 63397896) fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claim 3 discloses “the water body is first subjected to the biological action, and then the water body is subjected to the electrolysis.” However, this is not adequately supported or enabled in the provisional applications as claimed.
Claim 6 discloses “after the water body is subjected to the electrolysis, the PVA gel beads are added to the water body to perform the biological action.” However, this is not adequately supported or enabled in the provisional applications as claimed.
Due to insufficient disclosure in the prior-filed provisional applications, the priority claim for claims 3 and 6 has been denied. Priority claim for claim 4 has also been denied due to dependency on claim 3. For prior art purposes, the filing date of the instant application (08/15/2023) is applied to claims 3-4 and 6.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10-11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149645), in view of Dinh (DOI: 10.12777/ijse.7.1.41-47).
Regarding claim 1, Zou discloses “combining the electrochemical reduction and anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) processes together for treatment of nitrate-rich wastewater” (abstract, sent. 2) which is equivalent to a waste water treatment method comprising a water body subjected to biological action and electrolysis with an electrolysis device as claimed.
Zou does not disclose adding multiple PVA gel beads that entrap at least one type of microorganism to the water body.
However, Dinh discloses PVA gel beads containing immobilized microorganisms for wastewater treatment (abstract generally and pg. 1/par. 1-3).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to subject a water body to biological action and electrolysis as taught by Zou in conjunction with the PVA gel beads that entrap at least one type of microorganism as taught by Dinh. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use PVA gel beads to entrap a microorganism when performing a water body treatment method that combines electrolysis with biological action to yield the predictable result of decreasing hydraulic retention time and controlling bacteria concentration (see Dinh pg. 1/par. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention by combining prior art elements according to known methods because Zou teaches that a water treatment system can combine electrochemical and biological action (abstract, sent. 2) and Dinh teaches that PVA gel beads containing microorganism can used to treat wastewater with biological action (pg. 1/par. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Zou discloses the use of electrolytes to enhance wastewater electrical conductivity and specifically references Cl- anions (pg. 9/par. 4) which is equivalent to a water body with a halogen-containing substance as claimed. Zou also discloses a wastewater treatment process involving electrochemical reduction and then anammox (pg. 2/par. 4), which is equivalent to a water body being subjected to electrolysis and then biological action as claimed.
Zou does not disclose the addition of PVA gel beads to a water body to perform the biological action.
However, Dinh discloses PVA gel beads containing immobilized microorganisms (abstract generally).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine subjecting a water body with a halogen-containing substance to electrolysis and then biological action, as taught by Zou, with the addition of PVA gel beads containing immobilized microorganisms to the water body for performing the biological action, as taught by Dinh. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to add PVA gel beads to perform the biological action to yield the predictable result of decreasing the hydraulic retention time and controlling the microbe concentration (see Dinh pg. 1/par. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of arriving at the claimed invention by combining prior art elements according to known methods because Zou teaches that a water treatment system can combine electrochemical and biological action (abstract, sent. 2) along with a halogen-containing substance (pg. 9/par. 4) and Dinh teaches that PVA gel beads containing microorganism can used to treat wastewater with biological action (pg. 1/par. 1).by
Regarding claim 7, Zou discloses a process that is simultaneously performing electrochemical treatment and anammox or partial denitrification/anammox which is equivalent to performing electrolysis and biological action simultaneously (pg. 8/par. 3 and Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Zou discloses an electrolysis device with an operating current density of 25 mA/cm2 which is between the 5 mA/cm2 and 100 mA/cm2 as claimed (Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Zou discloses an electrolysis device with an operating current density of 25 mA/cm2 which is between the 20 mA/cm2 and 30 mA/cm2 as claimed (Table 1).
Regarding claim 14, Zou discloses an electrolysis device with a first electrode and a second electrode where the two electrodes are separated by a distance (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
428
1072
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Zou discloses the use of a first and a second electrode (Fig. 2) as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
1072
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149645), in view of Dinh (DOI: 10.12777/ijse.7.1.41-47), as evidenced by Wu (DOI: 10.2166/wst.2020.443).
Regarding claim 2, Zou discloses a water treatment method using autotrophic nitrifying bacteria (Fig.3), as evidenced by Wu (pg. 2/par. 2).
Zou does not disclose a microorganism trapped within PVA gel beads.
However, Dinh discloses bacteria immobilized within PVA gel beads (abstract generally and pg. 1/par. 1-2), which is equivalent to bacteria being entrapped within PVA gel beads.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention, to substitute the bacteria entrapped within a PVA gel bead as taught by Dinh with the autotrophic nitrifying bacteria as taught by Zou and evidenced by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do this to decrease the hydraulic retention time and control bacteria concentration for the autotrophic nitrifying bacteria (see Dinh pg. 1/par. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of arriving at the claimed invention by simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result because Dinh teaches bacteria entrapped within PVA gel beads (abstract generally and pg. 1/par. 1-2) that can be substituted for autotrophic nitrifying bacteria taught by Zou (Fig. 3) as evidenced by Wu (pg. 2/par. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
615
727
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149645), in view of Dinh (DOI: 10.12777/ijse.7.1.41-47), and in further view of Linwei (CN Patent No. 201911142640).
Regarding claim 3, Zou discloses combining the electrochemical reduction and anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) processes together for treatment of nitrate-rich wastewater (abstract, sent. 2) which is equivalent to subjecting a water body to biological action and electrolysis as claimed.
Zou does not disclose a water body that is first subjected to biological action, and then subjected to electrolysis.
However, Linwei discloses an industrial wastewater treatment process that involves a first aerobic biological treatment tank which feeds to an electrolytic cell which is equivalent to a water body that is first subjected to biological action, and then subjected to electrolysis as claimed (abstract generally).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a process where a water body is subjected to biological action and electrolysis as taught by Zou by first subjecting the water body to biological action, and then subjecting the water body to electrolysis as taught by Linwei. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to first subject the water body to biological action, and then subject the water body to electrolysis to improve wastewater treatment efficiency and to reduce wastewater treatment cost (see Linwei abstract generally). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention because it would be obvious to try to take the process steps of first performing biological action and then electrolysis as taught by Zou (abstract, sent. 2) and reorder these process steps to first perform electrolysis and then biological action to reduce wastewater treatment cost as taught by Linwei (abstract generally).
Regarding claim 4, Zou discloses the use of electrolytes to enhance wastewater electrical conductivity and specifically references Cl- anions (pg. 9/par. 4) which is equivalent to the addition of at least one halogen-containing salt to a water body as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Zou discloses the use of NaCl (pg. 9/par. 4 and Table 1) which is the same as sodium chloride as claimed.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149645), in view of Dinh (DOI: 10.12777/ijse.7.1.41-47) and in further view of Zang (DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.08.029).
Regarding claim 8, Zou discloses an electrolysis device with an operating voltage and current (Table 1).
Zou does not disclose an operating voltage between 5 V and 100 V and a current between 1 A and 1000 A.
However, the operation of an electrolyzer, which is equivalent to an electrolysis device, at a voltage between 5 V and 100 V and a current between 1 A and 1000 A is disclosed by Zang (Table 1) which indicates that the claimed voltage and current range are within the technical parameters of the disclosed electrolysis device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the electrolysis device taught by Zou at an operating voltage between 5 V and 100 V and operating current between 1 A and 1000 A as taught by Zang. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use these operating conditions while scaling the electrolysis device towards industrial relevance as taught by Zang (abstract generally, introduction/par. 2, and pg. 34552/par. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention by use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way because Zou teaches an electrolysis device with an operating voltage and current (Table 1) and Zang teaches the claimed operating current an voltage ranges for a similar electrolysis device (Table 1). c
Regarding claim 9, Zou discloses an electrolysis device with an operating voltage and current (Table 1).
Zou does not disclose an operating voltage between 5 V and 60 V and a current between 10 A and 300 A.
However, the ability to operate an electrolyzer, which is equivalent to an electrolysis device, at a voltage between 5 V and 60 V and a current between 10 A and 300 A is disclosed by Zang (Table 1) which indicates that the claimed voltage and current range are within the technical parameters of the disclosed electrolysis device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the electrolysis device taught by Zou at an operating voltage between 5 V and 60 V and operating current between 1 A and 300 A as taught by Zang. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use these operating conditions while scaling the electrolysis device towards industrial relevance as taught by Zang (abstract generally, introduction/par. 2, and pg. 34552/par. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention by use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way because Zou teaches an electrolysis device with an operating voltage and current (Table 1) and Zang teaches the claimed operating current an voltage ranges for a similar electrolysis device (Table 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149645), in view of Dinh (DOI: 10.12777/ijse.7.1.41-47) and in further view of Zang (DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.08.029).
Regarding claim 12, Zou discloses an electrolysis device (abstract generally).
Zou does not disclose an operating temperature of an electrolysis device between room temperature (20 ⁰C) and 50 ⁰C.
However, an electrolysis device operating at a temperature of 30.4 ⁰C, which is equivalent to an operating temperature between 20 ⁰C and 50 ⁰C as claimed is disclosed by Zang (pg. 34559/par. 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the electrolysis device taught by Zou with the operating temperature between 20 ⁰C and 50 ⁰C as taught by Zang. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use this operating condition to reduce energy consumption as taught by Zang (pg. 6/par. 6). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention by use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way because Zou teaches an electrolysis device (abstract generally) and Zang teaches a similar electrolysis device within the claimed operating temperature range (pg. 34559/par. 3).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149645), in view of Dinh (DOI: 10.12777/ijse.7.1.41-47) as evidenced by Ghazouani (DOI: 10.1080/19443994.2014.884473).
Regarding claim 13, Zou discloses an electrolysis device performing electrolysis on a body of water at a constant current density of 40 mA/cm2 (Table 1) which is equivalent to operating at a constant current given a fixed active area, as evidenced by Ghazouani (pg. 1109/par. 1).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149645), in view of Dinh (DOI: 10.12777/ijse.7.1.41-47), as evidenced by Yao (DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.116881).
Regarding claim 15, Zou discloses an electrolysis device with a first electrode and a second electrode where the two electrodes are separated by a distance (Fig. 2) of 1.5 cm (15 mm) (Table 1), as evidenced by Yao (pg. 2/par. 5). This 15 mm distance is between 2 mm and 50 mm as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
1072
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Zou discloses an electrolysis device with a first electrode and a second electrode where the two electrodes are separated by a distance (Fig. 2) of 1.5 cm (15 mm) (Table 1), as evidenced by Yao (pg. 2/par. 5). This 15 mm distance is between 2 mm and 20 mm as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
1072
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149645), Dinh (DOI: 10.12777/ijse.7.1.41-47), as evidenced by Su (DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.069).
Regarding claim 18, Zou discloses an Ir-Ru/Ti anode (Table 1), as evidenced by Su (pg. 2/par. 5) which is equivalent to an electrode with a base layer of titanium, an intermediate layer of iridium, and a surface layer of ruthenium where the intermediate layer covers the base layer and the surface layer covers the intermediate layer as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradie S. Crandall whose telephone number is (571)272-9778. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/B.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights