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 Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the final punctuation mark should be a period, but it currently is a comma.
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 4, 6-9, 21-23 and 25 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.
In regard to claim 4, the scope of the claim is unclear due to its dependence on the cancelled claim 2. For the sake of further examination, claim 4 will be treated as dependent on claim 3 instead.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "first molecular barrier" in regards to the molecular barrier of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only refers to “a molecular barrier” so there is no prior reference to a “first molecular barrier” specifically.
In regard to claim 8, the scope of the claim is unclear due to its dependence on the cancelled claim 5. For the sake of further examination, claim 8 will be treated as dependent on claim 7 instead.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "second molecular barrier" in regards to the molecular barrier of claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 only refers to “a molecular barrier” so there is no prior reference to a “second molecular barrier” specifically.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "fourth fluid path". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 only refers to “a third fluid path” so there is no prior reference to a “fourth fluid path” specifically.
In regard to claim 21, the scope of the claim is unclear due to its dependence on the cancelled claim 18. For the sake of further examination, claim 21 will be treated as dependent on claim 20 instead.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “fluid stream path”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 describes a flow path and claim 1 describes a fluid stream and a flow path, but there is no prior reference to a “fluid stream path” specifically.
In regard to claim 22, the scope of the claim is unclear due to its dependence on the cancelled claim 18. For the sake of further examination, claim 22 will be treated as dependent on claim 20 instead.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “fluid stream path”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 describes a fluid stream and a flow path, but there is no prior reference to a “fluid stream path” specifically.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "at least one membrane" in reference to the membranes of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which membrane is integrated into the anode or cathode, as claim 1 recites “at least a first, second and third separation membrane.” For purposes of examination, the incorporation of any of the first, second or third separation membranes into the anode or cathode will be considered to meet the claim.
Claim 7 is included in the rejection as it depends from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2-4, 6-9, 12, 14-17, 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005/015194 A1 (Referred to as "Ogle") in view of US 3761386 A (Referred to as "Smith").
In regard to claim 1, Ogle teaches an assembly adapted to be disposed between a cathode and an anode on page 3 lines 24-25 saying “The electrophoresis separation unit may contain an electrode associated with both the first and second manifolds."The assembly further comprises:
3 membranes in page 3 lines 30-32 and page 4 line 1
Said membranes have defined pore sizes in page 4 lines 21-23
A first spacer between the first and second membranes with a void between the inlet and outlet that defines a flow path. Ogle teaches on page 4 lines 2-7 the membrane support between two membranes and the fluid stream. Ogle teaches the inlet/outlet ports on page 4 lines 14-18.
A second spacer between the second and third membranes with a void between the inlet and outlet that defines a flow path. Ogle teaches on page 4 lines 8-9 the membrane support between two membranes and the fluid stream. Ogle teaches the inlet/outlet ports on page 4 lines 14-18.
a molecular barrier between the anode and the first fluid stream to prevent molecules in the first fluid stream contacting the anode by way of in Ogle’s figure 11 teaches a membrane (50) separating the electrode (90) and the flow paths (membrane support 10)
Ogle fails to teach the flow paths being “torturous.”
Smith teaches in column 3 lines 19-20 and figure 1B teach a "torturous path spacer." It would have been obvious to use this spacer instead of Ogle's spacer to increase the turbulence and prevent the formation of a "stagnation film" as described in Smith column 2 lines 26-35.
In regard to claim 3, Ogle teaches on page 10 lines 32-35 and page 11 lines 1-2 “outlet flow channels” and “inlet flow channels” depicted on figure 3 objects 15 and 16 respectively. These correspond to the outlet and inlet sealing channels respectively.
In regard to claim 4, Ogle teaches fluid streams along the flow paths on page 4 lines 6-9 and describes the electric field applied to the fluid streams on page 6 lines 17-22. The negative charged molecules will be drawn to the anode and the positive charged molecules will be drawn to the cathode. Ogle teaches on page 3 lines 30-32 and page 4 lines 1-9 ion-permeable membranes (separation membranes) that separate the fluid streams and across which the molecules path.
In regard to claim 6, Ogle teaches a separation membrane between the electrode and outer membrane which would create a third path on page 9 lines 13-17.
In regard to claim 7, Ogle teaches on page 9 lines 13-25, a separation membrane between the electrode and outer membrane which functions as a molecular barrier that substantially prevent convective mixing between the adjacent chambers.
In regard to claim 8, Ogle teaches a separation membrane between the electrode and outer membrane that would create a fourth path on page 9 lines 13-17.
In regard to claim 9, Ogle teaches in figure 15 described on page 14 lines 10-25, a fluid path between an electrode and a membrane, described as a “first flow chamber” item 103 (third fluid path). Ogle further teaches a fluid path between the opposite electrode and a separate membrane, described as a “second flow chamber” item 102 (fourth fluid path). Ogle further teaches that electrolyte solution is added to the first and second flow chambers, which contain the anode and cathode, described as electrodes item 90.
In regard to claim 12, Ogle teaches on page 6 lines 17-23 that there is a fluid passed through one of the flow chambers (fluid streams) where one or more compounds are separated into the other flow chamber. A fluid stream that contains molecules to be separated is a feed stream. This meets the claimed fluid stream containing feed material and a fluid stream containing a molecule or molecules separated from the feed materials.
In regard to claim 14, Ogle teaches on page 8 lines 8-9 and figure 8 shows the cell in a housing (30). Therefore, the cell is considered to be “removably received in a housing.”
In regard to claim 15, Ogle teaches a stack with more than 2 spacers (10, "supports") and more than 3 membranes (50, "membranes") in figure 7 described on page 12 lines 1-3. Ogle demonstrates in figure 7 that the additional spacers are between each other. Ogle further teaches in figure 15, the separation membranes (50, “membranes”) have a void extending from an inlet (108, 109, “electrolyte inlets) to an outlet (110, 111, “electrolyte outlets”) defining a fluid flow path in communication with the first or second flow paths (102, “first flow chamber” and 103, “second flow chamber”).
In regard to claim 16, Ogle teaches on page 4 lines 21-23 that the membranes have defined pore sizes/size distributions.
In regard to claim 17, Ogle teaches on page 6 lines 26-30 and page 7 lines 1-4 that it is previously known to have flow chambers opposing or in the same direction. They further teach in figure 2 that the first flow streams are half in the same direction of half of the second flow streams and half in the opposite direction of the second flow streams.
In regard to claim 19, Ogle teaches in figure 6 item 19 “flow channels” that are parallel.
In regard to claim 20, Ogle teaches on page 6 lines 26-27 that it is previously known to have flow chambers opposing or in the same direction. This by definition would force the spacer defining the flow path to have parallel sides. Ogle teaches in page 2 lines 21-22 that the spacers comprise parallel members (voids which define the flow paths) that are parallel.
In regard to claim 21, Ogle teaches on page 10 lines 32-35 and page 11 lines 1-2 that the flow is even due to the flow channels.
In regard to claim 22, Ogle teaches the system of claim 18, but fails to teach the spacer defining the flow paths as having non-parallel sides. Smith teaches in figure 1B that shows a spacer where the flow path has perpendicular paths. It would have been obvious to use this configuration instead of Ogle's configuration to increase the turbulence and prevent the formation of a "stagnation film" as described in Smith column 2 lines 26-35.
In regard to claim 23, Ogle teaches on page 10 lines 32-35 and page 11 lines 1-3 that the flow channels can control the flow rates. Ogle fails to teach any specific rates. Smith in column 3 lines 59-61 teaches a spacer with a winding path and a mesh to create turbulence which would result in an uneven flow rate.
In regard to claim 24, Ogle teaches on page 4 lines 21-23 that the pore sizes are defined for size-based separations which meets the claimed gradated pore sizes.
In regard to claim 25, Ogle teaches in figure 11 a membrane (50) integrated into an electrode (90).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogle in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200259196 A1 (Referred to as "Yamaki").
Ogle teaches on page 10 lines 32-35 and page 11 lines 1-3 that the flow channels can control the flow rates, but fails to teach a specific rate.
Yamaki teaches in [0127] that their membrane can be used for electrodialysis and in [0151] that the system for electrolysis had a water flow rate of 50 mL/min. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the flow rate of Yamaki on the system of Ogle to perform the electrodialysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY SABATOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-9893. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-6:00 M-Th.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/A.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights