CTNF 18/350,417 CTNF 101883 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-22-06 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 16, 24 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0046, reference character “30” is used to refer to both the titanium metal core and the titanium dioxide layer. References to the titanium dioxide layer should be made with reference character “32” as shown in Figure 2 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barry et al. (US 2016/0332902 A1) in view of Herring (CA 3100325 A1) . Regarding claims 1 and 5, Barry et al. discloses an electrocatalytic reactor for use with a power source for remediating polluted water (Fig. 2) comprising a first electrode w. The reactor also comprises a second electrode made of a titanium metal core (para. 0211) in electrical communication with the first electrode (Fig. 2, element 18). The static reactor system of para. 0211 is understood to mean a reactor in which polluted water is at least transiently retained as the reaction progresses. A voltage is supplied to the reactor (para. 0198). Barry teaches that the titanium dioxide layer may be doped with iron (paras. 0039-0040), but does not specify the low iron oxide, iron doped titanium dioxide nanoparticles which are bound to the outer surface of the titanium dioxide layer. Herring teaches a low iron oxide, iron-doped titanium dioxide film made of nanoparticles applied to an activated fiberglass cloth, for use in an electrocatalytic reactor for water remediation (p. 35). The low iron oxide content of the doped titanium dioxide layer improves the efficiency of the layer compared to one which contains greater amounts of iron oxide (p. 5). The iron dopant facilitates the formation of oxidizing radicals which inhibit growth of or eliminate pathogens (p. 31). It is obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the low iron oxide, iron-doped titanium dioxide coating taught by Herring to the first electrode taught by Barry. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to achieve more substantial water treatment compared to the simpler Fe-doped titanium dioxide coating taught by Barry, by treating the water for both chemical and biological pollutants. Regarding claim 2, in certain embodiments of the prior art Herring cell, a tube which is at least partially emersed in the polluted water and in fluid communication with an ambient air supply is taught (p. 26; fig. 2, element 48) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barry et al. in view of Herring as applied to claim s 1, 2, and 5 above, and further in view of Mwangi et al. (2021) . Regarding claims 3 and 6, modified Barry teaches all inherited limitations from claims 2 and 5. Barry does not teach a proton exchange member between the first and second electrodes of the claimed invention. However, Mwangi teaches an electrochemical cell for the treatment of wastewater, comprising a proton exchange membrane between the anode and cathode of the cell (p. 3, fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell of Barry to include a proton exchange membrane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to separate the polluted water from the cathode as shown in Mwangi Figure 1, preventing fouling or catalyst poisoning. Regarding claims 7-10, Barry modified by Herring and Mwangi teaches all limitations of claim 6. Barry further describes the addition of sodium chloride to the vessel of the reactor, with a concentration of 0.25 g NaCl/L or greater, equivalent to 250 ppm (para. 0232). Barry alone does not teach adding a chloride source to the first electrode side of the reactor, but in combination with Mwangi, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to add the chloride only to the first electrode side, because oxidation of pollutants such as ammonia occurs at the anode, equivalent to first electrode side, in the presence of chloride ions (Barry para. 0232; Mwangi Fig. 1). One would be motivated to make this modification in order to improve the conversion of pollutants in the electrochemical cell compared to adding chloride to both sides of the proton exchange membrane . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barry et al. in view of Herring and Mwangi et al . as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 107840496 A) . Regarding claim 4, modified Barry only discloses the metal titanium core of the second electrode, and not a ruthenium coating over this substrate. However, Wang teaches an electrolytic water treatment device, comprising a titanium base anode coated with ruthenium (Wang Claim 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell described by Barry in view of Mwangi by utilizing a ruthenium-coated titanium electrode. Although Wang teaches this composition for an anode, it is analogous to use the same composition in a cathode due to the more cathodic nature of platinum group metals compared to the claimed titanium/iron anode. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce corrosion of the titanium substrate from the acidic environment surrounding the cathode of the claimed electrocatalytic reactor. This would allow for a longer operational lifetime . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Mu et al. (CN 114349129 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM ET. 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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. /CBF/ Examiner, Art Unit 1711 /MICHAEL E BARR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/350,417 Page 2 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/350,417 Page 3 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/350,417 Page 4 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/350,417 Page 5 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/350,417 Page 6 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/350,417 Page 7 Art Unit: 1711