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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 18SEPT2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08JUL2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 18SEPT2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a) rejections, the standard for the written description is not whether a feature may be implemented, the standard is whether the specification contains a written description of the invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms to show that the inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. The specification as originally filed does not adequately describe various limitations as set forth in the claims (see 112(a) rejections below).
Regarding the 103 rejection with CARSWELL in view of FINDIKOGLU, the argument is not persuasive, because FINDIKOGLU teaches using a grounded cage, not a liner. Nowhere in FINDIKOGLU can the term “liner” be found and is not supported by the reference. See RUMA et. al. 2013 “Hydrogen peroxide generation by pulsed discharge in bubbling water” Fig. 1(a) for an example of a ground cage electrode, which is not a liner.
The issue is whether it is obvious to provide for a non-conductive wall made of a dielectric material, not to omit a grounded cage. It is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide for a non-conductive wall made of a dielectric material as is well known in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 9-16,18-20,22-28,30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9,18,28, the specification as originally filed does not specify a vessel having an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material. The specification par. [0018] describes the vessel:
[…] a reactor body that may be composed of a non-conductive material such as plastic or ceramics, which may, advantageously, avoid undesirable arcing with its electrical components. Some embodiments may, alternatively or additionally, be composed of conductive material such as steel which may, advantageously, increase durability and maintainability of the vessel. A conductive vessel ( or a portion thereof) may be maintained at a high voltage, at ground, allowed to float, etc.
The specification as originally filed does not describe the vessel wall as “free of any conductive liner”.
The specification as originally filed does not describe the dielectric interior-facing surface of the vessel wall inhibits sustained electrical conduction paths between the vessel wall and the set of electrodes during operation.
Regarding claim 30, the specification as originally filed does not describe a current-limiting network comprising one or more ballast resistors and/or inductors coupled in series with at least one of the first electrode or the second electrode, the current-limiting network being configured to limit discharge current during gas-phase breakdown so as to suppress high-current, localized electrical discharges between the electrodes within the vessel.
The specification par. [0021] describes the network:
The high voltage electrical circuit may be configured to prevent high localized and high current density electric discharges within the reactor. In one embodiment this is achieved through a network of ballast resistors, although one skilled in the art will understand that similar effects can be achieved by pulsing of the high voltage circuit and/or using transistors, spark gap switches, inductors, and similar components to limit the intensity, duration, or frequency of high current discharge events.
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.
Claims 9-16,18-20,22-27,30-32 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 9 line(s) 14-15 sets forth the limitation “the non-conductive interior-facing surface of the vessel wall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that “a non-conductive inner surface” was amended to “an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material”.
Claim 18 line(s) 30-31 sets forth the limitation “the non-conductive interior-facing surface of the vessel wall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that “a non-conductive inner surface” was amended to “an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9-16,22-25,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CARSWELL (US 3074870) in view of PEEK (US 1170184) and FINDIKOGLU (US 20150291456).
Regarding claims 9-10, CARSWELL teaches an apparatus for electrically separating the phases of a water-in-oil emulsion (title, Figs.) including a reactor comprising:
a vessel comprising a conductive tank (Fig. 1 #1; C4/L56-58, C5/L30-34) and a non-conductive hood (Fig. 1 #16; C5/L11-12);
a first port (e.g. Fig. 1 #2), capable of receiving an emulsified mixture into a liquid space of the vessel;
a second port (e.g. Fig. 1 #23 or another port; “the gas atmosphere […] controlled by means (not shown); C5/L49-50) capable of receiving a gas into a headspace of the vessel;
an outlet (e.g. Fig. 1 #10,19) capable of discharging liquids from the vessel;
a first electrode (Fig. 1 #11) capable of being disposed in the gas headspace of the vessel; and
a second electrode (Fig. 1 #7) capable of being disposed in the liquid space of the vessel;
the first and second electrodes having an interelectrode gap (Fig. 1; C5/L19-20) spanning the headspace and the liquid space such that a gas-liquid interface (the liquid level and/or gas-liquid interface is defined by the weir #8; C3/L32-46, C5/L3-4,14-20) lies between the electrodes; and
an electrical connection (C5/L17-18) capable of interfacing to an energy source to receive a voltage waveform (C1/L39-41) to generate a plasma discharge (“corona wind discharge”; C1/L12) between the first and second electrodes across the gas-liquid interface during operation.
CARSWELL does not teach a vessel having an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material. However, PEEK teaches separation of liquid suspensions (title, Figs.) including a reactor comprising:
a vessel (Fig. 1 #2) having an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material (P1/L35-37);
a first port (Fig. 1 #8) capable of receiving an emulsified mixture;
an outlet (Fig. 1 #5,6) capable of discharging liquids from the vessel;
a first electrode (inner electrode with projections, Fig. 1); and
an electrical connection (Fig. 1 #10) capable of interfacing to an energy source to receive a voltage (P1/L90); and,
wherein the vessel is capable of inhibiting arcing (“The dielectric wall is also useful in preventing a short-circuit by a dynamic arc”; P1/L95-96).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of CARSWELL with a vessel having an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material as taught by PEEK for preventing a short-circuit by a dynamic arc as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of electrostatic coalescence reactors. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Note that such a combination would provide a vessel having a non-conductive inner surface with a terminal for the screen electrode to be grounded by a wire instead of by the vessel wall (CARSWELL C5/L30-34; see e.g. FINDIKOGLU Fig. 5B with a reactor vessel #12 comprising a first electrode #14g and a second ground electrode #14h).
Note that the limitations “an emulsified mixture”, “a non-oxidative gas”, “oil”, “water”, “liquid”, “gas”, “liquid-gas interface” and “voltage” set forth methods and/or the material worked on as an intended use of the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements and thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 11, CARSWELL teaches the second port extends through an upper surface of the reactor (Fig. 1 #23).
Regarding claim 12, CARSWELL teaches the one or more outlets include:
a third port (Fig. 1 #10) capable of expelling oil from the vessel; and.
a fourth port (Fig. 1 #19) capable of expelling water from the vessel.
Regarding claim 13, CARSWELL teaches a pressure regulator (not shown; C5/L49-52).
Regarding claim 14, CARSWELL teaches the first electrode comprises a plurality of points (Fig. 1 #12) extending towards the second electrode.
Regarding claim 15, CARSWELL teaches the second electrode comprises openings (C5/L20-24).
Regarding claim 16, CARSWELL teaches a weir (Fig. 1 #8) comprising:
an upper surface capable of allowing a passage of the oil over the upper surface (C4/L67-68);
a blocking surface (surface of tank; Fig. 1 #1); and
an opening (opening leading to port #19), the opening disposed below the blocking surface.
Regarding claim 22, CARSWELL teaches the first electrode is diametrically opposite the second electrode along an axis (e.g. a vertical axis from #18 to the screen #7);
wherein the first port (Fig. 1 #2) is on a first side of the axis; and
wherein the outlet (e.g. Fig. 1 #10) is on a second side of the axis opposite the first side.
Regarding claim 23, CARSWELL teaches the axis extends along a plane perpendicular to a plurality of points (Fig. 1 #12) of the first electrode, and parallel to a member of the first electrode mechanically coupling the plurality of points;
wherein the axis is disposed medially across the gap (e.g a horizontal axis along the top of the collecting basin, Fig. 1 #9 in dashes).
Regarding claim 24, CARSWELL teaches the plane extends along an interface between the emulsion and the gas in the headspace, (in this case at the weir as the placement of the plane is somewhat arbitrary); and,
the first port is capable of receiving a quantity of the emulsion to fill the reactor to the plane.
Regarding claim 25, CARSWELL teaches a weir (Fig. 1 #8) capable of setting a liquid-gas interface;
wherein the first electrode (Fig. 1 #11) is positioned above the liquid-gas interface and the second electrode Fig. 1 #7) extends below the liquid-gas interface (C5/L19-20).
Regarding claim 28, CARSWELL teaches an apparatus for electrically separating the phases of a water-in-oil emulsion (title, Figs.) including a system comprising a reactor with a vessel comprising a conductive tank (Fig. 1 #1; C4/L56-58, C5/L30-34) and a non-conductive hood (Fig. 1 #16; C5/L11-12), the reactor comprising:
a set of ports capable of:
(i) receiving a liquid into the vessel (e.g. Fig. 1 #2);
(ii) receiving a gas into the vessel (e.g. Fig. 1 #23 or another port; “the gas atmosphere […] controlled by means (not shown); C5/L49-50);
(iii) expelling oil and water from the vessel (e.g. Fig. 1 #10,19);
a set of electrodes comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 1 #11) at a first height in a gas space (C3/L32-46); and
a second electrode (Fig. 1 #7) at a second height that is lower than the first height in a liquid space (C5/L3-4,14-20);
the set of electrodes capable of receiving a voltage (C1/L39-41); and
a weir (Fig. 1 #8) capable of setting a liquid-gas interface height in the vessel.
CARSWELL does not teach a vessel having an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material. However, PEEK teaches separation of liquid suspensions (title, Figs.) including a reactor comprising:
a vessel (Fig. 1 #2) having an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material (P1/L35-37);
a first port (Fig. 1 #8) capable of receiving an emulsified mixture;
an outlet (Fig. 1 #5,6) capable of discharging liquids from the vessel;
a first electrode (inner electrode with projections, Fig. 1); and
an electrical connection (Fig. 1 #10) capable of interfacing to an energy source to receive a voltage (P1/L90); and,
wherein the vessel is capable of inhibiting arcing (“The dielectric wall is also useful in preventing a short-circuit by a dynamic arc”; P1/L95-96).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of CARSWELL with a vessel having an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material as taught by PEEK for preventing a short-circuit by a dynamic arc as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of electrostatic coalescence reactors. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Note that such a combination would provide a vessel having a non-conductive inner surface with a terminal for the screen electrode to be grounded by a wire instead of by the vessel wall (CARSWELL C5/L30-34; see e.g. FINDIKOGLU Fig. 5B with a reactor vessel #12 comprising a first electrode #14g and a second ground electrode #14h).
Note that the limitations “an emulsified mixture”, “a non-oxidative gas”, “oil”, “water”, “liquid”, “gas”, “liquid-gas interface” and “voltage” set forth methods and/or the material worked on as an intended use of the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements and thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Claim(s) 18-20,26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CARSWELL (US 3074870) in view of PEEK (US 1170184), FINDIKOGLU (US 20150291456), EDDY (US 2033418).
Regarding claim 18, CARSWELL teaches an apparatus for electrically separating the phases of a water-in-oil emulsion (title, Figs.) including a system, comprising:
a reactor with a vessel comprising a conductive tank (Fig. 1 #1; C4/L56-58, C5/L30-34) and a non-conductive hood (Fig. 1 #16; C5/L11-12), the reactor comprising:
a first port (e.g. Fig. 1 #2) is provided to confine the incoming emulsion to a central position (C4/L61-62) and capable of receiving an emulsified mixture into the vessel of the reactor, the first port situated at a first height;
a second port (e.g. Fig. 1 #23 or another port; “the gas atmosphere […] controlled by means (not shown); C5/L49-50) capable of receiving a non-oxidative gas;
an additional port (e.g. Fig. 1 #10,19) capable of expelling oil from the vessel and expelling water from the vessel; and
a set of electrodes comprising a first electrode (Fig. 1 #11) situated at a second height that is above the first height so as to position the first electrode in a gas space of the vessel (as defined by the weir, Fig. 1 #8; C3/L32-46, C5/L14-16), and
a second electrode (Fig. 1 #7) separated from the first electrode by a gap (Fig. 1; C5/L19-20), the second electrode situated at a third height that is below the second height to position the second electrode in a liquid space of the vessel that is below the gas space of the vessel, the set of electrodes capable of receiving a voltage across the gap (C1/L39-41); and
an energy source (C1/L39-41), comprising:
a first terminal electrically connected to the first electrode (electrode #11 is connect to a source of high voltage not shown; C5/L17-18; see below); and
a second terminal electrically connected to the second electrode (screen #7 is charged through the vessel #1; C/L30-34; terminals are inherent as the electrodes need a terminal for any connecting wires in order to operate);
wherein the energy source is capable of generating the voltage between the first terminal and the second terminal (C5/L19-34);
wherein application of the voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode generates a plasma discharge in the gas space above the liquid space (“corona wind discharge”; C1/L12; C3/L35-37).
CARSWELL does not teach a vessel having an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material. However, PEEK teaches separation of liquid suspensions (title, Figs.) including a reactor comprising:
a vessel (Fig. 1 #2) having an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material (P1/L35-37);
a first port (Fig. 1 #8) capable of receiving an emulsified mixture;
an outlet (Fig. 1 #5,6) capable of discharging liquids from the vessel;
a first electrode (inner electrode with projections, Fig. 1); and
an electrical connection (Fig. 1 #10) capable of interfacing to an energy source to receive a voltage (P1/L90); and,
wherein the vessel is capable of inhibiting arcing (“The dielectric wall is also useful in preventing a short-circuit by a dynamic arc”; P1/L95-96).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of CARSWELL with a vessel having an interior-facing surface that comprises a dielectric material as taught by PEEK for preventing a short-circuit by a dynamic arc as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of electrostatic coalescence reactors. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Note that such a combination would provide a vessel having a non-conductive inner surface with a terminal for the screen electrode to be grounded by a wire instead of by the vessel wall (CARSWELL C5/L30-34; see e.g. FINDIKOGLU Fig. 5B with a reactor vessel #12 comprising a first electrode #14g and a second ground electrode #14h).
CARSWELL does not teach the second electrode situated at a third height that is below the first height of the first port. However, EDDY teaches electric treater for emulsions (title, Figs.) Including:
a first port (Fig. 1 #54) capable of receiving an emulsified mixture at a first height;
a first electrode (Fig. 1 #18) at a second height;
a second electrode (Fig. 1 #30) separated from the first electrode at a gap (Fig. 1) and at a third height that is below the first height of the first port.
EDDY teaches the intake pipe/first port flow the influent into the main electric field of the treatment space between the electrodes in order to improve the oil-water phase separations (P1/left C/L1-4; P2/left C/L30-34).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first port of CARSWELL at the height of the electric field as taught by EDDY for improving separations as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of electrostatic coalescence reactors. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Note that the limitations “an emulsified mixture”, “a non-oxidative gas”, “oil”, “water”, “liquid”, “gas”, “liquid-gas interface” and “voltage” set forth methods and/or the material worked on as an intended use of the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements and thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claims 19, limitations directed towards a method of providing energy (of specified voltage or frequency or alternating between low and high voltage) does not further impart limiting structure to the claim. Note that CARSWELL’s device is capable of using alternating current of at least 1kV (C4/L48-49,C8/L28).
Regarding claim 20, CARSWELL teaches a pressure regulator (not shown; C5/L49-52).
Regarding claim 26, CARSWELL teaches the first electrode (Fig. 1 #11) is diametrically opposite the second electrode (Fig. 1 #7) along an axis; and
wherein the axis extends along a plane perpendicular to a plurality of points (Fig. 1 #12) of the first electrode, and parallel to a member of the first electrode mechanically coupling the plurality of points.
Regarding claim 27, CARSWELL teaches the plane extends along an interface between the emulsion and the gas in the headspace, (in this case at the weir as the placement of the plane is somewhat arbitrary); and,
the first port is capable of receiving a quantity of the emulsion to fill the reactor to the plane.
Claim(s) 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CARSWELL (US 3074870) in view of PEEK (US 1170184), FINDIKOGLU (US 20150291456), and GAFRI (US 20220048795).
Regarding claim 30, CARSWELL does not teach details of the electrical system. However, GAFRI teaches a system and method for treatment of wastewater fluids (title, Figs.) including a reactor comprising a vessel (Fig. 2 #11); a potential electrode (Fig. 2 #1112), a grounded electrode (Fig. 2 #1114); and
a current-limiting network comprising e.g. inductors (Fig. 4 #Ls) coupled in series with the electrodes, the current-limiting network capable of limiting discharge current (par. [0116-0117]).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the apparatus of CARSWELL to include inductors as taught by GAFRI for limiting extreme current spikes as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of electrical reactors. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-32 have allowable subject matter over the prior art of record. The prior art neither teaches, suggests, nor makes obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a reactor comprising the combination of limitations as claimed.
Telephonic Inquiries
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~11:00~15:00.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/ Examiner, Art Unit 1777