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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejection using secondary reference Schwartzel et al., (“Schwartzel”, US 2011/0024361), in a new context.
On page 5 of the Remarks section, Applicant discusses the previous Specification objection, and the amendment made to address the objection. In response, the Examiner has withdrawn the objection.
On pages 5-6, Applicant argues against the previous prior art rejection of independent Claim 24 involving the previous prior art references of Albrecht et al., (“Albrecht”, US 2012/0292196), Nakanishi et al., (“Nakanishi”, US 2005/0173262), and Wikey, (US 3,891,535). Applicant summarizes the amendments made to independent Claim 24, and then argues that the above indicated references do not disclose the added amendments or newly added dependent Claim 33. The Examiner notes another secondary reference Schwartzel et al., (“Schwartzel”, US 2011/0024361) discloses the added amendments to Claim 24 and new dependent Claim 33. The Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments against the previous combination of references moot since Schwartzel discloses the features instead.
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 (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.
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) 24-26 & 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al., (“Albrecht”, US 2012/0292196), in view of Schwartzel et al., (“Schwartzel”, US 2011/0024361).
Regarding Claims 24-26 & 33, Albrecht discloses a method of operating an electrochemical cell, the method comprising steps of: introducing a first saline aqueous solution into a first chamber of an electrochemical cell comprising an anode, (Anode, See Figure 1A, See paragraph [0225], [0443]); introducing a second saline aqueous solution into a second chamber of the electrochemical cell comprising a cathode, (Cathode, See Figure 1A, See paragraph [0225], [0443]); and applying a current across the anode and the cathode at a voltage sufficient to generate a first product compound from the first saline aqueous solution, generate a second product compound from the second saline aqueous solution, (Voltage, See Figure 1A, See paragraph [0225], [0393]), and selectively transfer monovalent ions across an ionic connection between the first chamber and the second chamber, (IEM, See Figure 1A, See paragraph [0225], [0442]), the ionic connection being constructed and arranged to prevent the first saline aqueous solution from mixing with the second saline aqueous solution, (See paragraph [0227], [0228]).
Albrecht does not disclose recirculating the first saline aqueous solution between an outlet of the first chamber and an inlet of the first chamber without mixing with the second saline aqueous solution of the second chamber.
Schwartzel discloses recirculating the first saline aqueous solution between an outlet of the first chamber and an inlet of the first chamber without mixing with the second saline aqueous solution of the second chamber, (Water exits Anolyte Chamber Outlet 608 and is recycled via Line 612 back to Anolyte Chamber Inlet 607, See Figure 7, See paragraph [0196], & [0068], Schwartzel). Additional features of this embodiment are included as part of the overall combination and are claim mapped to the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Albrecht by incorporating recirculating the first saline aqueous solution between an outlet of the first chamber and an inlet of the first chamber without mixing with the second saline aqueous solution of the second chamber as in Schwartzel in order to “recycle…the anolyte stream…to enrich the chlorine…output of the cell”, (See paragraph [0091], Schwartzel), as “desired to further treat the water stream”, (See paragraph [0196], Schwartzel)
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 25: The method of claim 24, comprising introducing the second saline aqueous solution having a different composition than the first saline aqueous solution, (See paragraph [0440], [0437], Albrecht; anolyte selected as seawater, catholyte selected as brine, which have different salinities/compositions).
Claim 26: The method of claim 25, comprising introducing the first saline aqueous solution comprising seawater and introducing the second saline aqueous solution comprising brine, (See paragraph [0440], [0437], Albrecht; anolyte selected as seawater, catholyte selected as brine).
Claim 33: The method of claim 24, comprising recirculating the second saline aqueous solution between an outlet of the second chamber and an inlet of the second chamber, (Water exits Catholyte Chamber Outlet 608 and is recycled via Line 612 back to Catholyte Chamber Inlet 607, See Figure 7, See paragraph [0196], & [0068], Schwartzel).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
