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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 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.
As to claim 1, at line 14, the claim recites the limitation of “anodes”; however, “a plurality of anodes” is already introduced at line 11, therefore it is unclear as to if the limitation of line 14 intends to refer back to that of line 11 or to a new and separate limitation. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations.
Further as to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the two cathode shells" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further as to claim 1, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Use of the phrase optionally renders indefinite if a pH meter or TDS meter is required.
Further as to claim 1, at lines 43-45, the claim recites the limitations of “an inner surface of one shell” and “an outer surface of another shell”; however, these limitations are already introduced at lines 18-20, therefore it is unclear as to if the limitations of line 43-45 intends to refer back to that of lines 18-20 or to new and separate limitations. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations.
Further as to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the cathode" in line 45. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further as to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the cathode shells" in line 46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “precious metal like iridium, ruthenium and titanium”; however, it is unclear as to what “like” means or requires of the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105565438 A to Yu (Yu) in view of CN 106698685 to Guo et al (Guo), further in view of CN 111285441 A to Tang et al. (Tang), further in view of US 2021/0300798 A1 to Imachi et al. (Imachi), further in view of US 2005/0103722 A1 to Freydina et al. (Freydina) and further in view of CN 105948185 A to Wang et al. (Wang).
As to claim 1, Yu teaches an electrolytic water treatment system with automated cathode cleaning mechanism, the system comprising an electrolysis reactor (vertical water treatment device) having a housing a cavity (6), a plurality of cathode (2) placed in shell in shell system arrangement within the cavity (6) and attached at least indirectly to a bottom portion thereof with a support (mounting plate) (5) and a plurality of anodes (3) arranged in a circular fashion, each anode placed between two shells of the cathode arranged such that water flow passes through the annular space between the shells of the cathode; a scrapper mechanism for removing scale deposited on the cathode, the scrapper mechanism having a plurality of scraper bales (21) placed in the gaps between the cathode shells, the blades making contact with the inner and outer surfaces of the shells, a scrapper top gear plate (scraper base) (4) having holes capable of releasing gas produced during an electrolysis process and a rotary drive deice (8) attached to the scrapper top gear plate (4) to move the scrapper mechanism (Paragraphs 0029-0032, 0035, 0036; Figures 1 and 2).
However, Yu further fails to teach specifically how the rotation driving device is configured. However, Guo also discusses electrolytic water treatment utilizing a rotary descaling device and teaches that in order to rotate the scraper the driving device is formed of a gear mechanism having a gear motor and gear pinion attached together to rotate a movable gear train with the scrapper mechanism (Paragraphs 0025 and 0033; Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the gear mechanism of Guo for the driving device of Yu with the reasonable expectation of rotating the scrapping mechanism as taught by Guo.
However, Yu fails to teach that the housing comprises a housing plate on top, detachable from the bottom with a gas vent therein, Yu schematically showing a covered housing but giving no details (Figure 1). However, Guo further teaches that the electrolytic water treatment device should comprise a detachable metal cover with an outlet therein as the top of the housing (Paragraph 0009; Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the top of the reactor as a detachable metal cover, a housing plate, with an outlet therein, allowing for access to the reactor for service and outlet of gaseous electrolytic products, with the reasonable expectation of effectively forming the reactor as taught by Gou.
However, Yu further fails to teach that the anodes are provided in plurality such that a plurality of anodes are located between adjacent cathodes in a circular fashion, teaching a single circular anode between adjacent cathodes.
However, Tang also discusses electrolytic water treatment with a rotary scraping mechanism and teaches that a plurality of arc shaped anodes should be placed between the cylindrical cathodes such that the anode plate and scraping blades can together be incorporated into the rotary device in order to achieve both rotation electrolysis and descaling improving electrolysis efficiency (Paragraphs 0011-0014; Figures 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the single cylindrical anode of Yu with a plurality of arc shaped anodes in order to achieve both rotation electrolysis and descaling improving electrolysis efficiency as taught by Tang.
However, Yu further fails to teach that the anodes are supported by top and bottom rings. However, Imachi also discusses concentric anodes that do not form a full cylinder and teaches that the anode can be help with restrain members in the form of rings in order to hold in place the anode (Paragraphs 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to hold the arc anodes of the combination with a plurality of ring shaped restraint members, thus relatively top and bottom rings, in order to assist in holding the anodes as taught by Imachi.
Yu fails to specifically discuss the shape of the scraper blades; however, mere changes in shape are not patentably significant, rendering obvious triangular blades (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Yu focuses on the electrolytic reactor itself and fails to teach its actual configuration into a water treatment system. However, Freydina also discusses electrolytic water treatment and teaches for actual usage the electrolytic treatment device should be incorporated into a complete system comprising pumps (30) for pumping water to the electrolytic reactor, a DC power source (24) for providing power to the electrolytic reactor, sensors (20) for measuring system parameters including outlet pH and TDS, and a control panel (24) for controlling the operation of the reactor, pump and sensors (Paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0049 and 0055; Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Yu by incorporating it into a system comprising a pump for pumping water to the electrolytic reactor, a DC power source for providing power to the electrolytic reactor, sensors for measuring system parameters including outlet pH and TDS, and a control panel for controlling the operation of the reactor, pump and sensors with the expectation of effective incorporation of the electrolytic reactor into an actual water treatment system as taught by Freydina.
However, the combination fails to further specifically teach that the power source is located on a skid. However, Wang also discusses electrolytic water treatment and teaches that the power supply should be incorporated into a skid mounted design for easy installation and use (Paragraph 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the power supply into a skid for easy installation and use as taught by Wang.
As to claim 4, the combination of Yu, Guo, Imachi, Freydina and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above Guo teaches that the scraper blades (1) are attached with the gear mechanism (8) by means of the top gear plate (4) (Figure 1). However, Guo fails to teach that the scrapper mechanism further comprises a scrapper top ring and a scrapper bottom ring. However, as discussed above, Imachi teaches the support of cylindrically arranged components with a plurality of rings. Therefore, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cylindrically arranged scrapper components with a plurality, thus relatively top and bottom, support ring in order to further support the scrapping mechanism as taught by Imachi.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yu, Guo, Tang, Imachi, Freydina and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 106554090 A to Yang (Yang).
As to claim 2, the combination of Yu, Guo, Tang, Imachi, Freydina and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Yu is silent as to the material of the cathode. However, Yang also discusses electrolytic water treatment with a rotary scraping mechanism and teaches that an effective material for the cathode is stainless steel (Paragraph 0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize stainless steel for the cathode material of Yu with the reasonable expectation of effectively forming the cathode as taught by Yang.
As to claim 3, the combination of Yu, Guo, Tang, Imachi, Freydina and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Yu is silent as to the material of the anode. However, Yang also discusses electrolytic water treatment with a rotary scraping mechanism and teaches that an effective material for the anode is titanium mesh with a ruthenium iridium coating (Paragraph 0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize titanium mesh with a ruthenium iridium coating for the anode material of Yu with the reasonable expectation of effectively forming the cathode as taught by Yang.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yu, Guo, Tang, Imachi, Freydina and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2004/031453 A1 to Sole (Sole).
As to claim 5, the combination of Yu, Guo, Tang, Imachi, Freydina and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Yu fails to contemplate guides connecting the scrapper top gear plate and the housing plate. However, Sole also discusses rotary components of electrolytic cells and teaches that components can be maintained in tight contact but still allow rotation by the provision of grooves with male and female configurations (Page 7, Final Paragraph; Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the scrapper top gear plate and the housing plate with opposite male and female guides in order to allow for the plates to maintain close contact but still rotate relative to one another as taught by Sole.
Conclusion
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
