DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed with the US on 08/02/2023 and having an Effective Filing Date of 02/02/2021, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation “air/aeration inlets”, it is not clear if the slash means “or” or “and”, nor is it clear what the difference would be in structure between air inlets and aeration inlets.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the primary treatment tank”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “activated carbon/ion exchange resin filter”. It is not clear if this means the filter comprises “activated carbon or ion exchange resin” or “activated caron and ion exchange resin”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the ultrafiltration membrane”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9 and 11-20 are rejected for depending on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110902899 A (hereinafter “He”).
Regarding Claim 1 He discloses an electrochemical treatment module for the electrooxidation and electrocoagulation treatment of contaminants in wastewater, the electrochemical treatment module comprising:
a tank having a bottom, a top, a first and a second end; a plurality of first electrooxidation electrodes (16) and
a plurality of second electrocoagulation electrodes (4), wherein the plurality of first electrooxidation electrodes and the plurality of second electrocoagulation electrodes are located within the tank;
a waste water inlet 1 located at the first end of the tank;
a discharge outlet 20 located at the second end of the tank; and
a plurality of air/aeration inlets 15 located along the bottom of the tank; wherein the electrochemical treatment tank is configured to oxidize and coagulate chemical contaminants for removal by sedimentation (via sludge discharge pipe 3); pg. 4, Fig. 1.
With regard to the system being for treatment of greywater, these are functional limitations which attempt to define this apparatus claim’s structure in terms of its functional abilities. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114), and thus the prior art need only disclose structure capable of achieving the recited function(s) to read on the functional limitations. These functional limitations do not further define over the prior art because the structure disclosed by He would be capable of the noted functional limitation(s), i.e. even though the specific functions are not disclosed.
Regarding Claim 3 He discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first electrooxidation electrodes 16 are provided after the second electrocoagulation electrodes 4 and are thus provided in alternating arrangement; Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 6 He discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first electrooxidation electrodes 16 are planar electrodes comprising graphite (i.e. graphite plates); pg. 5, para. starting “In another embodiment, the anode plate of the electrooxidation electrode plate 16…”).
Regarding Claim 7 He discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second electrocoagulation electrodes 4 are planar electrodes may comprise aluminum, (i.e. aluminum plates); ; pg. 5, para. starting “In a preferred embodiment, the anode plate of the electrocoagulation electrode plate 4…”.
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 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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of US 2014/0246375 A1 (hereinafter “Gharibi”).
Regarding Claim 2 He discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the EC electrodes 4 are in a first set and the EO electrodes 16 in a second set provided after the EC electrodes (Fig. 1), and thus does not disclose the plurality of first electrooxidation electrodes are arranged sequentially in a first set and the plurality of second electrocoagulation electrodes are arranged in sequentially in a second set provided after the first set.
However Gharibi discloses a similar electrochemical treatment system for the electrooxidation and electrocoagulation treatment of contaminants in wastewater, wherein plurality of first electrooxidation electrodes are arranged sequentially in a first set and the plurality of second electrocoagulation electrodes are arranged in sequentially in a second set provided after the first set; Abstract, Fig. 1, [0014]-[0019].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of He by having the EO electrode set be upstream of the EC electrode set as disclosed by Gharibi because this a known alternative arrangement of sets of EC and EO electrodes used in a similar wastewater treatment system which provides the additional benefits of removing cyanide, and because it would have been obvious to try this arrangement because there are a finite number of ways two sets of electrodes can be arranged in fluid flow, i.e. one or the other must be upstream and the other downstream, and would have provided an expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 9 He discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the electrochemical treatment module further comprises a sedimentation tank in fluid communication with the discharge outlet of the primary treatment tank.
However Gharibi discloses a similar electrochemical treatment system for the electrooxidation and electrocoagulation treatment of contaminants in wastewater, wherein the electrochemical treatment module further comprises a sedimentation tank in fluid communication with the discharge outlet of the primary treatment tank, which provides for further removal of contaminants from the water being treated, such as removing heavy metals; Abstract, Fig. 1, [0014]-[0019].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of He by including a sedimentation tank in fluid communication with the discharge outlet of the electrode treatment tank as disclosed by Gharibi in order to further remove contaminants from the water being treated, such as removing heavy metals [0019].
Claims 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of US 2012/0031852 Al (hereinafter “Aglietto”).
Regarding Claim 4 He discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the first and second electrodes are arranged to ensure continuous serpentine flow through the tank.
However Aglietto discloses a similar electrochemical treatment system for the electrooxidation treatment of contaminants in wastewater, comprising electrodes in a tank, wherein the electrodes are arranged to ensure continuous serpentine flow through the tank, to ensure the water flows over the full surface of each electrode and facilitates cleaning the electrodes; [0100], [0114], [0119]
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of He by arranging the electrodes such that they ensure continuous serpentine flow through the tank as discleod by Aglietto to ensure the water flows over the full surface of each electrode and facilitates cleaning the electrodes.
Regarding Claim 5 He in view of Aglietto discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the serpentine flow is achieved through placement of gaps between the ends of electrodes and the tank walls and/or placement of holes in in the electrodes; Aglietto Figs. 1, 3, [0100], [0114], [0119].
Regarding Claim 8 He discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the first and second electrodes are provided in an electrode core, wherein the electrode core comprises non- conductive side plates configured to hold the electrodes securely in position, and wherein the electrode core is configured for insertion and removal from the tank for electrode maintenance.
However Aglietto discloses a similar electrochemical treatment system for the electrooxidation treatment of contaminants in wastewater, comprising electrodes in a tank, wherein the electrodes are positioned in groves of the tank preferably “with an appropriate containment structure made of non-conducting material (for example polypropylene) constituting a single seal pack” [0014].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of He by using a containment structure of polypropylene to house the electrodes, and which allows the electrodes to slide into groves of the tank as disclosed by Aglietto because this involves the use of known technique (containment system and grove holders) to improve similar devices (electrochemical water treatment systems) in the same way.
It is not specifically disclosed that the containment system (i.e. electrode core) comprises non-conductive side plates configured to hold the electrodes securely in position, however, the containment system is disclosed to be formed from polypropylene, and would thus be non-conductive, and with regard to side plates, since the containment system is for holding flat electrodes, it would have been obvious for the containment structure to comprise two side plates, that conform to the flat plate electrodes, in order to save space.
Claims 10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of US 2012/0160706 Al (hereinafter “Poirier”).
Regarding Claim 10 He discloses a multi-stage system for treating wastewater, the system comprising:
an electrochemical treatment module comprising:
a tank having a bottom, a top, a first and a second end; a plurality of first electrooxidation electrodes (16) and
a plurality of second electrocoagulation electrodes (4), wherein the plurality of first electrooxidation electrodes and the plurality of second electrocoagulation electrodes are located within the tank;
a waste water inlet 1 located at the first end of the tank;
a discharge outlet 20 located at the second end of the tank; and
a plurality of air/aeration inlets 15 located along the bottom of the tank; wherein the electrochemical treatment module is configured for the electrooxidation and electrocoagulation treatment of chemical contaminants in wastewater; pg. 4, Fig. 1.
He does not disclose discloses a pretreatment module for removing oil and grease from the greywater prior to treatment in the electrochemical treatment module; and a filtration module for removing particulate and microbial contaminants and dissolved chemicals from the greywater following treatment in the electrochemical treatment module.
However Poirier discloses a similar multi-stage system for treating wastewater using electrocoagulation and electrooxidation, which includes a pretreatment module for removing oil and grease from the wastewater prior to treatment in the electrochemical treatment module ([0032] and while grease is not mentioned, the oil removers/coalescers would obviously also function to remove grease); and a filtration module for removing particulate and microbial contaminants and dissolved chemicals from the wastewater following treatment in the electrochemical treatment module ([0059]-[0065] suggests granular activated carbon, ion exchange, a filter, chemical reducing agents, an aeration device, a heating device for thermal decomposition of the oxidants and ultraviolet (UV) radiation hydrocyclone, filter press or rotary drum filter).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of He by including a pretreatment module for removing oil and grease from the wastewater prior to treatment in the electrochemical treatment module and a filtration module for removing particulate and microbial contaminants and dissolved chemicals from the wastewater following treatment in the electrochemical treatment module as disclosed by Poirier in order to remove bulk solids , oil and grease before it reaches the electrochemical treatment units and to provide effluent free of residual oxides, and because such pre- and post-treatment modules were known to improve the similar multi-stage electrochemical water treatment system of Poirier and would therefore have been obvious to include to improve the system of He in the same way.
With regard to the system being for treatment of greywater, these are functional limitations which attempt to define this apparatus claim’s structure in terms of its functional abilities. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114), and thus the prior art need only disclose structure capable of achieving the recited function(s) to read on the functional limitations. These functional limitations do not further define over the prior art because the structure disclosed by He in view of Poirier would be capable of the noted functional limitation(s), i.e. even though the specific functions are not disclosed.
Regarding Claim 18 He in view of Poirier and discloses the multistage system of claim 10, wherein the first electrooxidation electrodes 16 are provided after the second electrocoagulation electrodes 4 and are thus provided in alternating arrangement, He Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 20 He in view of Poirier discloses the multistage system of claim 10, wherein the first electrooxidation electrodes 16 are planar electrodes comprising graphite (i.e. graphite plates); He pg. 5, para. starting “In another embodiment, the anode plate of the electrooxidation electrode plate 16…”) and the second electrocoagulation electrodes 4 are planar electrodes may comprise aluminum, (i.e. aluminum plates); ; He pg. 5, para. starting “In a preferred embodiment, the anode plate of the electrocoagulation electrode plate 4…”.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Poirier and CN 104230069 A (hereinafter “Zhou”).
Regarding Claim 11 He in view of Poirier discloses the multistage system of claim 10, but does not disclose the filtration module comprising a multistage filtration system, wherein the multistage filtration system comprises: a first filter stage for removing micron sized particles; a second filter stage comprising an activated carbon/ion exchange resin filter; a third filter stage for removing dissolved chemical contaminants; and a fourth filter stage comprising an ultrafiltration membrane for removing nanoparticulates.
He does not disclose what is done with the discharged treated water, however Poirier discloses in their similar system that the post-electrochemical treatments are adjusted to the desired use of the treated effluent, including use as drinking water [0061]. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the treated effluent for drinking water and adjust post-electrochemical treatments (i.e. the filtration module) accordingly.
With regard to the specific post-electrochemical treatments/filtration module, Zhou discloses a system for filtering water to provide drinking water, which includes a multistage filtration system, wherein the multistage filtration system comprises:
a first filter stage for removing micron sized particles (micron filter 20 or 22, with pores of 1-0.1 micron); a second filter stage comprising an activated carbon/ion exchange resin filter (Activated charcoal/carbon filter 3); a third filter stage for removing dissolved chemical contaminants (post active carbon unit 8); and a fourth filter stage comprising an ultrafiltration membrane for removing nanoparticulates (ultra filtration unit 4/42 which is an ultrafiltration membrane)
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of He in view of Poirier by including after the electrochemical treatment module the multistage filtration system as disclosed by Zhou including a first filter stage for removing micron sized particles (micron filter 20 or 22, with pores of 1-0.1 micron); a second filter stage comprising an activated carbon/ion exchange resin filter (an activated charcoal/carbon filter); a third filter stage for removing dissolved chemical contaminants (an active carbon unit); and a fourth filter stage comprising an ultrafiltration membrane for removing nanoparticulates in order to render the effluent satisfactory for drinking water.
Regarding Claim 12 He in view of Poirier and Zhou discloses the multistage system of claim 11, wherein first filter stage is described as a “cotton strainer 20 of PP” (pg. 3, throughout), and thus it is not clear if the strainer is cotton or polypropylene, it is believed to be a translation error but given the confusion one of skill in the art would find it obvious to use either cotton or PP (polypropylene), as long as it provides the required filtration size.
Regarding Claim 13 He in view of Poirier and Zhou discloses the multistage system of claim 11, wherein the third filter stage is a carbon filter; supra.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Poirier and Zhou and US 2011/0114573 A1 (hereinafter “Simpson”).
Regarding Claim 14 He in view of Poirier and Zhou discloses the multistage system of claim 13, but does not disclose the carbon filter is a graphene-enhanced carbon filter.
However Simpson discloses an absorbent filter for gas or liquids that comprises graphene and additionally activated carbon, which may be used to filter water for drinking [0026], [0037], [0043], [0088].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of He in view of Poirier and Zhou by substituting for one of the carbon filters the graphene and carbon filter of Simpson because this involves the simple substitution of known carbon filters for filtering water for drinking to obtain the predictable result of a successful multistage water treatment system and carbon filtration of drinking water.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Poirier and CN110280142A (hereinafter “Rui”).
Regarding Claim 15-16 He in view of Poirier discloses the multistage system of claim 10, but does not disclose (claim 15) wherein the ultrafiltration membrane is a hollow fiber ultrafiltration membrane, or (claim 16) wherein the hollow fiber ultrafiltration membrane is a graphene-enhanced hollow fiber ultrafiltration membrane.
However Rui discloses a hollow fiber ultrafiltration membrane for filtering water, which comprises silver-graphene, i.e. is graphene enhanced, to improve its hydrophilicity and give it antibiotic properties (Abstract, pgs. 2-3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of He in view of Poirier and Zhou by using as the ultrafiltration membrane the silver-graphene hollow fiber ultrafiltration membrane of Rui because this involves the simple substitution of known ultrafiltration membranes for filtering water to obtain the predictable result of a successful multistage water treatment system and ultrafiltration of water, and because it has improved hydrophilicity and antibiotic properties.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Poirier and Gharibi
Regarding Claim 17 He in view of Poirier discloses the multistage system of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the plurality of first electrooxidation electrodes are arranged sequentially in a first set and the plurality of second electrocoagulation electrodes are arranged in sequentially in a second set provided after the first set.
However Gharibi discloses a similar electrochemical treatment system for the electrooxidation and electrocoagulation treatment of contaminants in wastewater, wherein plurality of first electrooxidation electrodes are arranged sequentially in a first set and the plurality of second electrocoagulation electrodes are arranged in sequentially in a second set provided after the first set; Abstract, Fig. 1, [0014]-[0019].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of He in view of Poirier by having the EO electrode set be upstream of the EC electrode set as disclosed by Gharibi because this a known alternative arrangement of sets of EC and EO electrodes used in a similar wastewater treatment system which provides the additional benefits of removing cyanide, and because it would have been obvious to try this arrangement because there are a finite number of ways two sets of electrodes can be arranged in fluid flow, i.e. one or the other must be upstream and the other downstream, and would have provided an expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Poirier and Aglietto
Regarding Claim 19 He in view of Poirier discloses the multistage system of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the first and second electrodes are arranged to ensure continuous serpentine flow through the tank, wherein the serpentine flow is achieved through placement of gaps between the ends of electrodes and the tank walls and/or placement of holes in in the electrodes.
However Aglietto discloses a similar electrochemical treatment system for the electrooxidation treatment of contaminants in wastewater, comprising electrodes in a tank, wherein the electrodes are arranged to ensure continuous serpentine flow through the tank, to ensure the water flows over the full surface of each electrode and facilitates cleaning the electrodes; [0100], [0114], [0119], wherein the serpentine flow is achieved through placement of gaps between the ends of electrodes and the tank walls and/or placement of holes in in the electrodes; Aglietto Figs. 1, 3, [0100], [0114], [0119].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of He by arranging the electrodes such that they ensure continuous serpentine flow through the tank wherein the serpentine flow is achieved through placement of gaps between the ends of electrodes and the tank walls and/or placement of holes in in the electrodes as discleod by Aglietto to ensure the water flows over the full surface of each electrode and facilitates cleaning the electrodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/Magali P Slawski/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773