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 § 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 8-12, 14, 21-24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (WO/2022181875) in view of Ma et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0220185) and Hankins et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0356088).
Regarding claim 8, Moon discloses a deionization system of an electrolyzer comprising:
an electrolyzer cell (420) including a membrane (106) and catalyst layers (112, 116; paragraphs 10-11, 27-28, 79),
a water source releasing a water stream (S1) including metal ions and having a neutral pH (pure water is supplied via line S1, and a circulation line is provided to remove radicals and metal ions from the water circulation process – paragraphs 28, 39-40),
a source of a deionization additive (600) downstream from the water stream (S1) and upstream from the electrolyzer cell (420), the deionization additive being released into the water stream to chemically interact with the metal ions present in the water stream (the chelating agent/additive removes metal ion impurities from the water – paragraphs 39-40, 47),
Moon fails to teach wherein the additive includes a weak acid to form a neutral precipitate, and a controller programmed to add a predetermined amount of the additive to the water stream.
Ma discloses an electrolyzer system comprising a water additives source (123) that may be controlled by a controller programmed to adjust the composition of the feed stream (paragraphs 88, 93). Acidic additives may be used to facilitate acid-base reactions by acting as catalysts. The additives source (123) may be configured to adjust the concentration of one or more solutes such as one or more salts in the aqueous feed stream (paragraphs 84, 88, 93, 264-266).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to control the amount of the additive being added to the water stream of Moon, as taught by Ma, in order to ensure an optimal concentration of the aqueous feed stream.
Moon in view of Ma fails to explicitly teach wherein the additive is a weak acid to chemically interact with the metal ions present in the water stream to form a neutral precipitate.
Hankins teaches a system for selectively removing charged species in a solution, the system comprising an additive source, i.e. a weak acid, configured to react with metal ions present in the solution to form a precipitate comprising a salt of the metal ions. The precipitates can be effectively removed via simple filtration at a high efficiency level (paragraphs 3, 171, 197, 199-200, 203, 250, 275 – the charged species in the separated precipitate/floc can be recovered by pH adjustment and concentration into metal salts).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to use a weak acid as the additive of Moon, because as taught by Hankins, weak acids are well-known in the art to be effective to form a precipitates that can be effectively removed via simple filtration at a high efficiency level, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 9, the system of Moon includes water quality sensors (paragraph 28). The control system of Ma also comprises a plurality of sensors within the electrolyzer (paragraph 95).
Regarding claim 10, the controller of Ma is programmed to add the predetermined amount continuously (paragraphs 84, 88, 93, 95).
Regarding claim 11, the metal ions of Moon are iron ions (paragraphs 42, 59-65).
Regarding claim 12, Ma further teaches wherein the predetermined amount is based on ion concentration in the water stream (paragraphs 88, 93, 99).
Regarding claim 14, the membrane of Moon is a polymer electrolyte membrane (paragraphs 7, 66, 83).
Regarding claim 21, Moon discloses a deionization system of an electrolyzer comprising:
an electrolyzer cell (420) including a membrane (106) and catalyst layers (112, 116; paragraphs 10-11, 27-28, 79),
a water source releasing a water stream (S1) including metal ions and having a neutral pH (pure water is supplied via line S1, and a circulation line is provided to remove radicals and metal ions from the water circulation process – paragraphs 28, 39-40);
a source of a deionization additive (600) downstream from the water stream (S1) and upstream from the electrolyzer cell (420), the deionization additive being released into the water stream to chemically interact with the metal ions present in the water stream (the chelating agent/additive removes metal ion impurities from the water – paragraphs 39-40, 47),
Moon fails to teach wherein the additive includes a weak acid, and a controller programmed to add a predetermined amount of the additive to the water stream to precipitate the metal ions before the water stream enters the electrolyzer cell.
Ma discloses an electrolyzer system comprising a water additives source (123) that may be controlled by a controller programmed to adjust the composition of the feed stream (paragraphs 88, 93). Acidic additives may be used to facilitate acid-base reactions by acting as catalysts. The additives source (123) may be configured to adjust the concentration of one or more solutes such as one or more salts in the aqueous feed stream (paragraphs 84, 88, 93, 264-266).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to control the amount of the additive being added to the water stream of Moon, as taught by Ma, in order to ensure an optimal concentration of the aqueous feed stream.
Moon in view of Ma fails to explicitly teach wherein the additive is a weak acid configured to form a neutral precipitate comprising a salt of the metal ions.
Hankins teaches a system for selectively removing charged species in a solution, the system comprising an additive source, i.e. a weak acid, configured to react with metal ions present in the solution to form a precipitate comprising a salt of the metal ions. The precipitates can be effectively removed via simple filtration at a high efficiency level (paragraphs 3, 171, 197, 199-200, 203, 250, 275 – the charged species in the separated precipitate/floc can be recovered by pH adjustment and concentration into metal salts).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to use a weak acid as the additive of Moon, because as taught by Hankins, weak acids are well-known in the art to be effective to form a precipitates that can be effectively removed via simple filtration at a high efficiency level, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 22, the system of Moon includes water quality sensors (paragraph 28). The control system of Ma also comprises a plurality of sensors within the electrolyzer (paragraph 95).
Regarding claim 23, Ma further teaches wherein the predetermined amount is based on ion concentration in the water stream (paragraphs 88, 93, 99, 104).
Regarding claim 24, the metal ions of Moon are iron ions (paragraphs 42, 59-65). Hankins also discloses selective recovery of iron ions (paragraphs 134-135).
Regarding claim 26, the weak acid of Hankins comprises citric acid (paragraphs 199-200, 203).
Regarding claim 27, the water source of Hankins includes sea water (paragraph 38).
Claims 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon, Ma and Hankins as applied to claims 8 and 21 above, and further in view of Kornbluth et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2021/0190695).
Regarding claims 13 and 25, the modified Moon teaches all the features discussed above, the system including sensors (paragraph 28), but fails to teach wherein the sensors are chemically bound to the deionization additive.
Kornbluth discloses a chemo-sensor device used for detecting metal ions, i.e. Pb2+, in an aqueous sample; the chemo-sensor device comprising a compound that binds the ion, thereby causing the compound to produce a fluorescent signal that can be detected, the compound comprising a fluorophore and a receptor (paragraphs 18-19, 79). The compound produces a significantly increased fluorescence signal upon the binding of an ion to the compound, as compared to the signal produced by the compound in the absence of the ion binding (paragraph 57). These sensors prevent fold-over quenching encountered in conventional sensors and provide improved sensitivity to water pollutants (abstract; paragraphs 8, 37-38, 48; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a sensor that can be chemically bound to the additive of the modified of Moon because as taught by Kornbluth, chemo-sensor devices comprising a compound that binds the ion causes the compound to produce a fluorescent signal that can be easily detected, thereby providing improved sensitivity to water pollutants.
Claims 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (WO/2022181875) in view of Kornbluth et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2021/0190695) and Ma et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0220185)
Regarding claim 28, Moon discloses a deionization system of an electrolyzer comprising:
an electrolyzer cell (420) including a membrane (106) and catalyst layers (112, 116; paragraphs 10-11, 27-28, 79),
a water source releasing a water stream (S1) including metal ions (pure water is supplied via line S1, and a circulation line is provided to remove radicals and metal ions from the water circulation process – paragraphs 28, 39-40),
a source of a deionization additive (600) located upstream of the electrolyzer cell (420), and configured to release the additive into the water stream, the deionization additive being configured to selectively bind the metal ions (the chelating agent/additive removes metal ion impurities from the water – paragraphs 39-40, 47), and
a sensor structured to monitor quantity of the metal ion present in the water stream (paragraph 28).
Moon fails to teach wherein the sensor is chemically bound to the deionization additive; and
a controller a controller configured to determine an amount of the deionization additive to be introduced into the water stream based on the signal from the one or more sensors.
Kornbluth discloses a chemo-sensor device used for detecting metal ions, i.e. Pb2+, in an aqueous sample; the chemo-sensor device comprising a compound that binds the ion, thereby causing the compound to produce a fluorescent signal that can be detected, the compound comprising a fluorophore and a receptor (paragraphs 18-19, 79). The compound produces a significantly increased fluorescence signal upon the binding of an ion to the compound, as compared to the signal produced by the compound in the absence of the ion binding (paragraph 57). These sensors prevent fold-over quenching encountered in conventional sensors, and provide improved sensitivity to water pollutants (abstract; paragraphs 8, 37-38, 48; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a sensor that can be chemically bound to the additive of Moon because as taught by Kornbluth, chemo-sensor devices comprising a compound that binds the ion causes the compound to produce a fluorescent signal that can be easily detected, thereby providing improved sensitivity to water pollutants.
Moon in view of Kornbluth fails to teach a controller a controller configured to determine an amount of the deionization additive to be introduced into the water stream based on the signal from the one or more sensors.
Ma discloses an electrolyzer system comprising a water additives source (123) that may be controlled by a controller programmed to adjust the composition of the feed stream (paragraphs 88, 93). Acidic additives may be used to facilitate acid-base reactions by acting as catalysts. The additives source (123) may be configured to adjust the concentration of one or more solutes such as one or more salts in the aqueous feed stream (paragraphs 84, 88, 93, 264-266).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to control the amount of the additive being added to the water stream of the modified Moon, based on the signal from one or more sensors as taught by Ma, in order to ensure an optimal concentration of the aqueous feed stream.
Regarding claim 29, the one or more sensors of Kornbluth comprise a fluorophore chemically bound to the deionization additive (paragraphs 18-19, 79).
Regarding claim 30, the signal of Ma is indicative of a concentration of the metal ions in the water stream (paragraphs 88, 93, 95, 99, 104).
Regarding claim 31, the controller of Ma is configured to determine the amount of the deionization additive based on a concentration of the metal ions (paragraphs 88, 93, 95, 99, 104).
Regarding claim 32, the metal ions of Moon are iron ions (paragraphs 42, 59-65). Hankins also discloses selective recovery of iron ions (paragraphs 134-135).
Regarding claim 33, the membrane of Moon is a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM – paragraph 66).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed on June 3, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in view of Ma, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art made of record fails to teach “wherein the additive includes a weak acid to chemically interact with the metal ions present in the water stream to form a neutral precipitate”, and “wherein the sensors are chemically bound to the deionization additive”.
Upon further review and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been presented in view of Hankins and Kornbluth et al. Therefore, this rejection is not being made final.
Conclusion
In view of the new grounds of rejection presented above, this Office Action has been made Non-Final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights