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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Abbreviations
AEM – Anion Exchange Membrane
CEM – Cation Exchange Membrane
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 2 reads “modules:”, but should read “modules[[:]],” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 7 line 2 reads “each frame”, but should read “each frame of the pair of frames” to be consistent with the phrasing used in claims 8 and 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4 and 10-14 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.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitations “the first terminal” in line 3 and “the second terminal” in line 5. However, claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites “at least one first terminal and second terminal”. It is therefore unclear, in light of the specification, whether:
Claim 3 is intended to require exactly one first terminal and exactly one second terminal;
Claim 3 is intended to require each of the at least one first and second terminals to have at least one first and second adapters, respectively;
Claim 3 is intended to require at least one of the at least one first and second terminals to have a first adapter and a second adapter, respectively; or,
Some other meaning.
Claim 3 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 4 and 10-12, claims 4 and 10-12 depend from claim 3, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of claim 3. Claims 4 and 10-12 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 recites the limitation "the rotary shaft" in lines 5-6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, does not recite “a rotary shaft”. It is therefore unclear whether claim 13 was intended to recite “a rotary shaft”, or to depend from a claim reciting “a rotary shaft”.
Claim 13 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 depends from claim 13, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 13.
Claim 14 is therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0221711 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a capacitive adsorption module assembly (abstract) comprising:
a plurality of capacitive adsorption modules (“a capacitive deionization electrode 100” para. 20 and Fig. 2), wherein each of the plurality of capacitive adsorption modules comprises:
a disk-shaped spacer configured to form a flow path through which feed flows (“a spacer 220 configured to define a flow path between neighboring ones of the deionization electrodes” para. 36 and see Fig. 2);
a disk-shaped cation exchange membrane attached to any one of an upper surface and a lower surface of the spacer (“a first ion selective membrane 122 located on the surface of the first adsorption layer” para. 20, Fig. 2, and see below);
a disk-shaped first electrode attached to the cation exchange membrane (“a current collector 110,” para. 20 and see annotated Fig. 2 inset, below);
a disk-shaped anion exchange membrane attached to the other of the upper surface and the lower surface of the spacer (“a second ion selective membrane 132 located on the surface of the second adsorption layer” para. 20, Fig. 2, and see below); and
a disk-shaped second electrode attached to the anion exchange membrane (“a current collector 110,” para. 20 and see annotated Fig. 2 inset, below),
wherein the capacitive adsorption modules are stacked in a vertical stacking direction such that the plurality of capacitive adsorption modules forms a cylindrical shape and adjacent capacitive adsorption modules share or contact the first electrode or the second electrode (“stacking a plurality of deionization electrodes, one of which has been described above, and is configured in the form of a cylinder” para. 43 and Fig. 2), and
wherein at least one first terminal and second terminal passing through the cylindrical shape in the vertical stacking direction is provided (“The two conducting rods are inserted into opposite ends of the stacked deionization electrodes in a symmetrical fashion, and the inserted conducting rods alternately contact the deionization electrodes.” para. 45 and “conducting rod 230” Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding the limitations “disk-shaped cation exchange membrane” and “disk-shaped anion exchange membrane”, Kang teaches “In a monopolar electrode module, ion selective membranes having the same polarity arc formed at opposite ends of each deionization electrode, stacked deionization electrodes are disposed so as to face ion selective membranes having different polarities.” (para. 45). I.e., if the membranes on a first “current collector 110” are cation exchange membranes, the membranes on each adjacent “current collector 110” are anion exchange membranes, and vice versa. Thus, when the “first adsorption layer 121” is defined as the electrode attached to the CEM, the “second adsorption layer 131” associated with the same “spacer 220” is an AEM, see annotated Fig. 2 inset, below.
PNG
media_image1.png
669
1203
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kang Fig. 2 Inset
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0221711 A1) in view of Kurita (US Pat. No. 6402920 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Kang anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) above, incorporated herein by reference.
Kang does not teach the spacer includes a pair of frames spaced apart from each other in the vertical stacking direction by a predetermined space, wherein the predetermined space forms a flow path through which the feed flows. Kang is silent as to the construction of the spacer.
However, Kurita teaches a spacer for use in electrochemical water purification systems comprising membranes (abstract and col. 1 lines 5-17), the spacer comprising a pair of frames (“the spacer is composed of parallel frame-shaped gaskets 7A, 7B” col. 3 lines 36-42 and Fig. 1) spaced apart from each other a stacking direction (“The electrodeionization apparatus of the present invention has the same structure as the conventional electrodeionization apparatus shown in FIG. 2 except that the spacer for defining the concentrating compartment is provided with the mesh and the gaskets having the thicknesses specified above.” col. 4 lines 29-38 and Fig. 2) by a predetermined space (“a mesh 7M arranged therebetween … mesh 7M of the spacer should have a thickness of equal to or less than 0.5 mm …” col. 3 lines 36-52 and Fig. 1), wherein the predetermined space forms a flow path through which the feed flows (“A mesh 7M is arranged inside the gasket 7 of a spacer for defining the concentrating compartment.” col. 1 line 64 – col. 2 line 2 and Fig. 1, see also col. 2 lines 21-30), which provides the predictable benefits of improving mixing at the ion exchange membranes via turbulent flow (“The spacer for defining the concentrating compartment of the present invention improves the efficiency of removing the ions to be ascribed to the promotion of occurrence of the turbulence at the mesh portion to accelerate the movement of the ions on the surface of the membrane” col. 3 lines 13-21) and reducing internal resistance in the system (“Further, the concentrating compartment is made thinner, so that the electrical resistance between electrodes can be lowered to improve the electrical efficiency.” Id.).
As Kang teaches a membrane capacitive deionization system, Kang is analogous art to the instant invention. As Kurita teaches an electrochemical system for removing ions from water, Kurita is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Kang, such that the spacers comprise a pair of frames spaced apart from each other in the (vertical) stacking direction by a predetermined space, wherein the predetermined space forms a flow path through which the feed flows, as taught by Kurita. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of improving turbulence at the membrane surfaces and reducing electrical resistance in the cells, as taught by Kurita. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kang further teaches, via Kurita, each of the pair of frames are disposed perpendicular to the (vertical) stacking direction (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 13-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 9, or 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11891315 B2 (the reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the reference patent recites a capacitive adsorption module assembly comprising (line 1):
a plurality of capacitive adsorption modules (line 2):
wherein each of the plurality of capacitive adsorption modules comprises (lines 3-4):
a disk-shaped spacer configured to form a flow path through which feed flows (lines 5-6);
a cation exchange membrane attached to any one of an upper surface and a lower surface of the spacer (lines 7-8);
a first electrode attached to the cation exchange membrane (lines 9-10);
an anion exchange membrane attached to the other of the upper surface and the lower surface of the spacer (lines 11-12); and
a second electrode attached to the anion exchange membrane (lines 13-14),
wherein the capacitive adsorption modules are stacked in a vertical stacking direction such that adjacent capacitive adsorption modules share or contact the first electrode or the second electrode (lines 15-18), and
wherein at least one first terminal and second terminal passing through the cylindrical shape in the vertical stacking direction is provided (lines 19-21).
Claim 1 of the reference claim does not explicitly recite the cation exchange membrane, anion exchange membrane, first electrode, and second electrode are disk-shaped, or the plurality of capacitive adsorption modules forms a cylindrical shape.
However, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use disk-shaped membranes and electrodes, such that the plurality of capacitive adsorption modules forms a cylindrical shape, because the claim teaches the spacers separating these components are disk-shaped. Furthermore, changes in the shape of an apparatus are prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B)).
The limitations of claim 1 are thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 2, claim 8 of the reference patent further recites a rotary shaft inserted through the plurality of capacitive adsorption modules (lines 2-3).
The limitations of claim 2 are thus rendered obvious by claim 8 of the reference patent. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 3, claim 8 of the reference patent further recites a first adapter is provided on one side of the rotary shaft to fix and electrically connect the first terminal (lines 4-6), and
a second adapter is provided on the other side of the rotary shaft to fix and electrically connect the second terminal (lines 8-9).
The limitations of claim 3 are thus rendered obvious by claim 8 of the reference patent. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 4, claim 8 of the reference patent further recites the first terminal is electrically connected to the first electrode of an odd-numbered capacitive adsorption module (lines 4-7), and the second terminal is electrically connected to the second electrode of an even-numbered capacitive adsorption module (lines 8-10).
The limitations of claim 4 are thus rendered obvious by claim 8 of the reference patent. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 13, Claim 9 of the reference patent recites recites a capacitive deionization apparatus comprising (line 1):
a capacitive adsorption module assembly (lines 2-28),
a casing hermetically accommodating the capacitive adsorption module assembly and having a feed passage (lines 29-31);
a power source configured to supply DC power to both ends of the rotary shaft protruding to an outside of the casing (lines 32-34); and
a rotary driving unit configured to drive the rotary shaft (line 35).
Claim 9 does not recite the capacitive adsorption module assembly is that recited in claim 1, but differs only in that the cation exchange membrane, anion exchange membrane, first electrode, and second electrode are not recited as disk-shaped, and the plurality of capacitive adsorption modules is not recited as forming a cylindrical shape.
However, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use disk-shaped membranes and electrodes, such that the plurality of capacitive adsorption modules forms a cylindrical shape, because the claim teaches the spacers separating these components are disk-shaped. Furthermore, changes in the shape of an apparatus are prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B)).
The limitations of claim 13 are thus rendered obvious by claim 9 of the reference patent. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 14, claim 11 of the reference patent further recites the power source supplies DC power to the rotary shaft via a slip ring (lines 2-3).
The limitations of claim 13 are thus rendered obvious by claim 11 of the reference patent. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Claims 5-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, or 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11891315 B2 (the reference patent) in view of Kurita (US Pat. No. 6402920 B1).
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Claim 1 of the reference patent further recites the spacer includes a pair of frames spaced apart from each other by a predetermined space (lines 22-23),
wherein the predetermined space forms a flow path through which the feed flows (lines 24-25).
Claim 1 of the reference claim does not recite the direction in which the frames are spaced apart is the vertical stacking direction.
However, Kurita teaches a spacer for use in electrochemical water purification systems comprising membranes (abstract and col. 1 lines 5-17), the spacer comprising a pair of frames (“the spacer is composed of parallel frame-shaped gaskets 7A, 7B” col. 3 lines 36-42 and Fig. 1) spaced apart from each other a stacking direction (“The electrodeionization apparatus of the present invention has the same structure as the conventional electrodeionization apparatus shown in FIG. 2 except that the spacer for defining the concentrating compartment is provided with the mesh and the gaskets having the thicknesses specified above.” col. 4 lines 29-38 and Fig. 2), which provides the predictable benefits of improving mixing at the ion exchange membranes via turbulent flow (“The spacer for defining the concentrating compartment of the present invention improves the efficiency of removing the ions to be ascribed to the promotion of occurrence of the turbulence at the mesh portion to accelerate the movement of the ions on the surface of the membrane” col. 3 lines 13-21) and reducing internal resistance in the system (“Further, the concentrating compartment is made thinner, so that the electrical resistance between electrodes can be lowered to improve the electrical efficiency.” Id.).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention recited in claim 1 of the reference patent, are spaced apart from each other in the (vertical) stacking direction. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of improving turbulence at the membrane surfaces and reducing electrical resistance in the cells, as taught by Kurita. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 5 are thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Kurita. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 6, modified claim 1 of the reference patent further renders obvious, via Kurita, each of the pair of frames are disposed perpendicular to the vertical stacking direction (see Figs. 1 and 2).
The limitations of claim 6 are thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Kurita. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 further recites each frame includes a circumferential frame part formed in a circumferential direction and a radial frame part formed in a radial direction to connect the circumferential frame part (lines 26-29).
The limitations of claim 7 are thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Kurita. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 8, claim 3 further recites each radial frame part of the pair of frames is disposed so as not to overlap or face each other (lines 2-3).
The limitations of claim 8 are thus rendered obvious by claim 3 of the reference patent in view of Kurita. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 7 obvious in view of Kurita, as described above.
Claim 4 further recites each radial frame part of the pair of frames forms a curve having curvature in opposite directions (lines 2-4).
The limitations of claim 9 are thus rendered obvious by claim 4 of the reference patent in view of Kurita. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11891315 B2 (the reference patent) in view of Kang (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0221711 A1).
Regarding claim 10, claim 8 of the reference patent renders the limitations of claim 4 obvious, as described above.
Claim 8 of the reference patent does not recite the first terminal is embedded in the odd-numbered capacitive adsorption module and coupled to a first nut electrically connected to the first electrode and the second terminal is embedded in the even-numbered capacitive adsorption module and coupled to a second nut electrically connected to the second electrode.
However, Kang teaches that embedding the first and second terminals in odd and even numbered capacitive adsorption modules, respectively, wherein the terminals are electrically connected to first and second electrodes by first and second nuts, respectively (“configured such that a screw thread is formed in the outer circumferential surface of the conducting rod and such that the fixture is formed as a nut” para. 39 and Figs. 2-3, see also para. 45), is a suitable means for supplying power to disk-shaped capacitive deionization electrodes.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention recited in claim 8, such that the first terminal is embedded in the odd-numbered capacitive adsorption module and coupled to a first nut electrically connected to the first electrode and the second terminal is embedded in the even-numbered capacitive adsorption module and coupled to a second nut electrically connected to the second electrode, as taught by Kang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Kang teaches this is a suitable means for supplying power to disk-shaped capacitive deionization electrodes. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 10 are thus rendered obvious by claim 8 of the reference patent in view of Kang. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 7-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting and/or U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the prior art of record, alone or in combination does not reasonably teach or disclose the cumulative limitations of claims 2 or 13, with a particular emphasis on the limitation “a rotary shaft inserted through the plurality of capacitive adsorption modules.”
The closest prior art is considered to be Kang (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0221711 A1), Kim (KR 2020/0094341 A), and Beldring (US Pat. Pub. 2009/0159514 A1).
Kang anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
However, Kang does not teach a rotary shaft inserted through the plurality of capacitive adsorption modules.
Kim teaches a capacitive deionization system (title) comprising a central shaft (“treated water pipe (200)” para. 28 and Fig. 3) to which the electrodes are attached (“electrodes (310, 320)” Id.).
However, the electrodes in Kim are not disk shaped, and the central shaft is not inserted through the capacitive adsorption modules.
Beldring teaches an electrolytic system comprising a rotary shaft (abstract) that provides enhanced flow (Id.), however the rotary shaft of Beldring is not inserted through the electrodes, rather the electrodes are disposed on the sides of the system (para. 51 and Fig. 16). Furthermore, the system of Beldring is not a capacitive deionization system, but rather an electrolytic system (para. 51).
It is therefore considered that the prior art, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or disclose the cumulative limitations of claims 2 or 13. These claims are therefore considered patentably distinguished over the prior art, and would be allowable if amended in independent form and to address any rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and/or on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting.
Regarding claims 3-4, 10-12, and 14, these claims depend from claims 2 or 13, and therefore incorporate the patentably distinguished subject matter of claims 2 or 13. These claims would therefore be allowable if amended in independent form and to address any rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and/or on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting for at least the reasons enumerated for claims 2 and 13 above.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or disclose the cumulative limitations of claim 7, with a particular emphasis on the combined limitations “the spacer includes a pair of frames spaced apart from each other in the vertical stacking direction by a predetermined space, wherein the predetermined space forms a flow path through which the feed flows” (claim 5) and “each frame includes a circumferential frame part formed in a circumferential direction and a radial frame part formed in a radial direction to connect the circumferential frame part.” (claim 7).
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Kang (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0221711 A1), Kurita (US Pat. No. 6402920 B1), and Beldring (US Pat. Pub. 2009/0159514 A1).
Kang in view of Kurita render the limitations of claim 6 obvious, as described above.
However, neither Kang nor Kurita teach the frame includes a circumferential frame part formed in a circumferential direction and a radial frame part formed in a radial direction to connect the circumferential frame part.
Beldring teaches a frame for a rotary electrochemical cell (abstract), the frame including a circumferential frame part formed in a circumferential direction (“outer ring 5” para. 39 and Fig. 4) and a radial frame part formed in a radial direction to connect the circumferential frame part (“support ribs 7” Id.).
However, the frame of Beldring is not a pair of frames spaced apart from one another, but rather a single integral piece.
No particular motivation in the prior art could be identified for combining both the frame structures of Kurita and Beldring with the system of Kang simultaneously.
It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would not have found it obvious to modify the spacers of Kang to both comprise a pair of frames spaced apart from one another by a predetermined distance, as taught by Kurita, and to comprise a circumferential frame part and a radial frame part as taught by Beldring.
Therefore, the cumulative limitations of claim 7 are considered to be patentably distinguished over the prior art of record, and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and to overcome the rejections on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 7, and therefore incorporate the patentably distinct subject matter of claim 7. Claims 8 and 9 are therefore patentably distinguished over the prior art of record for at least the same reasons enumerated for claim 7, above.
Claims 8 and 9 would therefore be allowable if rewritten in independent form and to overcome the rejections on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights