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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/15/2023, 8/2/2023 and 7/25/2025 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 6/15/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (JP 2014-504549 A) in view of Akabori et al (JP 2011167643 A) and Andelman et al (US 20020167782 A1).
Regarding claims 1-9 and 11, Yang discloses a device and a method wherein the device comprising (a) a first electrode (12-, negative electrode) in contact with an electrolyte solution having a solute concentration CA (diluted flow); (b) a second electrode (12+, positive electrode)in contact with an electrolyte solution having a solute concentration CB (concentrated flow), where CB is higher than CA; and (c) a membrane (14, anion exchange membrane) selectively permeable to anions (Cl-), the membrane being disposed between two electrodes and including at least one channel disposed to allow diffusion of the electrolyte (it is obvious from the point that Cl- diffuses from the "-" side to the "+" side in the lower part of Fig. 3); wherein the two electrodes are formed of activated carbon, and the electrodes having cation selective reactivity (coated with a cation exchange coating) [Fig. 1-3; paragraph 0011-0024].
Yang remains silent about the details as claimed; however, Akabori teaches a device that "adsorbs an ionic substance to an electrode" substantially functions as a device (power supply) that generates (stores) electrical energy. Akabori further teaches activated carbon used for an electrode of a device (liquid passing type capacitor) for flowing an electrolyte solution, a thickness of less than 5000 micrometers (activated carbon electrode thickness is "usually approximately 0.1-3 mm ", that is, approximately 100-3000μm ), and having a specific surface area of at least 500m2/g (BET specific surface area of 1000m2/g or more) [paragraph 0001, 0021-0026, 0031].
Andelman teaches a charge barrier flow-through capacitor and a method wherein the capacitor comprises electrodes (2), charge barrier (3), spacer (4), and optionally, a current collector (1). As exemplified in, it is a design matter that could have been appropriately selected by a person skilled in the art to apply either a configuration in which a plurality of ion selective membranes (charge barrier 3) are provided between two electrodes (2) [Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0046] or a configuration in which electrolytes are diffused from the first electrodes to the second electrodes through a single ion selective membrane (3) [Figs. 15 and 16; paragraphs 0087-0090]. Andelman further teaches that the thickness of the ion selective film (charge barrier material) can be appropriately set within the range of 2 to 75 micrometers (" 0.001 inch " = 25.4 micrometers) [paragraph 0117].
Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 12-13, Yang teaches the electrolyte solution (synthetic brine) containing CaCl2 [paragraph 0027-0028]. Andelman teaches electrolyte solution (seawater) comprising at least NaCl, and also contains LiCl, KCl, and MgCl2 [paragraph 0015, 0117].
9. Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (JP 2014-504549 A) in view of Akabori et al (JP 2011167643 A) and Andelman et al (US 20020167782 A1) as applied in claim 8 and further in view of Jeong et al (KR 20190061332 A).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Yang remains silent about the concentration ratio (CB/CA). Jeong teaches a hybrid apparatus and method for deionization power generation capable of continuous power generation by salinity gradient and seawater desalination by connecting a reverse osmosis module to a rear of an integrated apparatus which links reverse electrodialysis (RED), capacitive deionization (CDI) or electrodialysis (ED), which can simultaneously generate electricity and perform desalination [Abstract]. Jeong further teaches 3.5 wt% seawater is introduced as a first high-concentration solution into the first and second reverse electrodialysis power generation units (100, 200) and the desalination unit (300), and 0.05 wt% freshwater is introduced as a first low-concentration solution. The concentration ratio is set to more than 1 and less than 105 (3.5wt%/0.05wt%=70 ) [paragraph 0099]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723