DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on January 4, 2024and any subsequent filings.
Claims 1-25 are pending.
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 2, 8, and 12-13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms parallel, coplanar, and cylindrical have been rendered indefinite by the use of the substantially.
Claim Interpretation
The claims 2, 8, and 12-13 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element.
Regarding Claim 2, “substantially parallel wires” is interpretated as “parallel wires.”
Regarding Claim 8, “substantially cylindrical” is interpretated as “cylindrical.”
Regarding Claim 12, “substantially parallel cathode wires” is interpretated as “parallel cathode wires.”
Regarding Claim 13, “substantially coplanar” is interpretated as “coplanar.”
Claim Objections
Claim1 objected to because of the following informalities: the list in claim one includes a duplication of "(e)" which should be "(f)". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 17-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackermann, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110025306 A1 ("Ackermann"), in view of Dumas, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20040118688 A1 ("Dumas"), Burke, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110162966 A1 ("Burke"), in further view of “Electrophoretic and Dielectrophoretic Field Gradient Technique for Separating Bioparticles.” Pysher, et al ("Pysher").
Regarding Claim 1, Ackermann teaches a method for removing a polarized molecular cluster (particles, nano-particles, collids, molecules and ions, Ackerman, paragraph 18) in a fluid, the method comprising:
supplying a voltage (voltage, Ackerman, paragraph 22) between an anode and a cathode;
creating an electric field (electromagnetic field, Ackerman, paragraph 22) between the anode and the cathode;
placing the fluid within a gap between the anode and the cathode (“liquids 51 with trace amounts of contamination enter the removal zone 41 of the cylinder 3 under laminar flow conditions,” Ackerman, paragraph 72 and Figure 4);
trapping the reduced size polarized molecules in activated carbon on the anode (“At the cathode or anode, the contamination adheres and agglomerates on the electrode, thereby removing soluble and insoluble contaminates,” Ackerman, paragraph 73).
Ackermann does not teach creating electrophoresis forces creating dielectrophoresis forces on dipoles of the polarized molecular cluster and reducing a size of the polarized molecular cluster with the dielectrophoresis forces.
Dumas discloses creating electrophoresis forces (electrophoresis, Dumas, paragraph 8) between the anode and the cathode to cause ions of the polarized molecular cluster in the fluid to move to the anode (Dumas, paragraph 8) and also creating dielectrophoresis forces (dielectrophoresis, Dumas, paragraph 14) on dipoles of the polarized molecular cluster ("magnetically polarizable particles," Dumas, paragraph 14).
Burke teaches reducing a size of the polarized molecular cluster with the dielectrophoresis forces ("Dielectrophoresis is a technique that employs time-varying, or alternating current electric fields to apply a force to polarizable objects. The force relies on the difference in the polarizability of the system compared to its surrounding media (e.g. water)," Burke, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Ackerman with the references of Dumas and Burke because the invention of Dumas and Burke falls within the same field of innovation regarding a cathodes and anodes that produce magnetic. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the limitations of electrophoresis forces added by Dumas and dielectrophoresis forces added by Burke would improve the selectivity of the technique and which aids as a versatile and useful tool for separating mixtures (Pysher, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. The combination of references teaches a 100 KHz of RF power and the voltage, which is DC, to the anode ("The power supply converts the 120 VAC to fully rectified and filtered DC power used in the reaction chamber. DC power can be adjusted between 0 and 600 VDC," Ackerman, paragraph 99).
Regarding Claim 17, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. The combination of references teaches the RF power and the voltage, which is DC, to an anode of the electrodes, during the flowing of the liquid ("The power supply converts the 120 VAC to fully rectified and filtered DC power used in the reaction chamber. DC power can be adjusted between 0 and 600 VDC," Ackerman, paragraph 99).
Regarding Claim 18, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. The combination of references teaches a method for removing a polarized molecular cluster (particles, nano-particles, collids, molecules and ions, Ackerman, paragraph 18) in a fluid, the method comprising:
Supplying a voltage between electrodes comprising an anode and a cathode, the cathode comprising multiple spaced apart and substantially parallel cathode ("plurality of cathodes spaced apart from each other and in parallel with each other," Chang, paragraph 75) wires (electrodes may take the form of wires, Chang, paragraph 74), and the anode having an elongation direction offset oriented from an elongation direction of the cathode wires (Ackerman, paragraph 72, Figure 4);
Creating an electric field (electromagnetic field, Ackerman, paragraph 22) between the anode and the cathode wires (Ackerman, paragraph 22);
flowing the fluid within a gap between the anode and the cathode wires (“liquids 51 with trace amounts of contamination enter the removal zone 41 of the cylinder 3 under laminar flow conditions,” Ackerman, paragraph 72 and Figure 4); and
creating electrophoresis forces (electrophoresis, Dumas, paragraph 8) between the anode and the cathode wires to cause at least a portion of the polarized molecular cluster in the fluid to move to the anode (Dumas, paragraph 8) and also creating dielectrophoresis forces (dielectrophoresis, Dumas, paragraph 14) on at least a portion of the polarized molecular cluster ("magnetically polarizable particles," Dumas, paragraph 14).
Regarding Claim 19, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. The combination of references teaches a method comprising: causing a non-uniform electric field through the fluid from the cathode wires to the anode (create the nonuniform electric field therebetween, Ackerman, Figure 5); reducing a size of the polarized molecules ("Dielectrophoresis is a technique that employs time-varying, or alternating current electric fields to apply a force to polarizable objects. The force relies on the difference in the polarizability of the system compared to its surrounding media (e.g. water)," Burke, paragraph 4); and trapping the reduced size polarized molecules in activated carbon on the anode (“At the cathode or anode, the contamination adheres and agglomerates on the electrode, thereby removing soluble and insoluble contaminates.” Ackerman, paragraph 73).
Regarding Claim 22, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. The combination of references teaches a method where at the electrodes has a curved cross-sectional shape ("The outer tube 3 is typically the cathode and the center electrode 13 is typically the anode", Ackerman, paragraph 64, Figure 5 and 6).
Regarding Claim 23, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. The combination of references teaches a method where the electrodes have a substantially polygonal cross-sectional shape with a flat face facing another of the electrodes ("The outer tube 3 is typically the cathode and the center electrode 13 is typically the anode," Ackerman, paragraph 64, Figure 5 and 6).
Claims 2, 12, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackermann, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110025306 A1 ("Ackermann"), in view of Dumas, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20040118688 A1 ("Dumas"), Burke, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110162966 A1 ("Burke"), “Electrophoretic and Dielectrophoretic Field Gradient Technique for Separating Bioparticles.” Pysher, et al ("Pysher"), in further view of Chang, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20060060464 A1 ("Chang").
Regarding Claim 2, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. The combination of references teaches, a cathode that has a non-uniform electric field to flow through the fluid from the cathode wires to the anode (create the nonuniform electric field therebetween, Ackerman, Figure 5).
The combination of references does not teach the cathode comprises multiple spaced apart and substantially parallel wires.
Chang teaches cathode comprises multiple spaced apart and parallel wires ("plurality of cathodes spaced apart from each other and in parallel with each other," Chang, paragraph 75) (electrodes may take the form of pins, wires, rods, Chang, paragraph 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke with the references of Chang because the invention of Chang falls within the same field of innovation regarding a cathodes, anodes, and electrodes. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the limitations of a cathode that has multiple spaced apart and parallel wires of Chang would improve energy efficiency with the electrode configuration and increase of reactive surface (Chang, paragraph 254).
Regarding Claim 12, paragraphs 29-33 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Chang, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 2. The combination of references teaches the electrodes comprise multiple spaced apart and substantially parallel cathode ("plurality of cathodes spaced apart from each other and in parallel with each other," Chang, paragraph 75) wires (electrodes may take the form of pins, wires, rods, Chang, paragraph 74), further comprising causing a non-uniform electric field to flow through the liquid from the cathode wires to the at least one of the electrodes which is at least one anode (create the nonuniform electric field therebetween , Ackerman, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 25, paragraphs 29-33 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Chang, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 2. The combination of references teaches an electrode deionizer apparatus comprising:
Cathode comprising multiple spaced apart and substantially parallel cathode ("plurality of cathodes spaced apart from each other and in parallel with each other", Chang, paragraph 75) wires (electrodes may take the form of pins, wires, rods, Chang, paragraph 74);
Anode having an elongation direction offset oriented from an elongation direction of the cathode wires (Ackerman, paragraph 72, Figure 4);
DC power supply connected to the anode (DC power can be adjusted between 0 and 600 VDC,"" Ackerman, paragraph 99);
RF power supply connected to the anode ("The power supply converts the 120 VAC to fully rectified and filtered DC power used in the reaction chamber," Ackerman, paragraph 99);
Housing (insulative housing 27, Ackerman, paragraph 65, Figure 1) containing the cathode wires (electrodes may take the form of wires, Chang, paragraph 74) and the anode;
Pipe (Figure 8 shows the water flows through pipes, Eckelberry) coupled to the housing (insulative housing 27, Ackerman, paragraph 65, Figure 1) and being configured to flow a liquid within a gap between the anode and the cathode wires (electrodes may take the form of wires, Chang, paragraph 74) (insulator between the cathode and the anode, Bang, claims, paragraph 11); and
Activated carbon, located on the anode, configured to remove ionic molecules from the liquid (“At the cathode or anode, the contamination adheres and agglomerates on the electrode, thereby removing soluble and insoluble contaminates.” Ackerman, paragraph 73) due to dielectrophoresis created between the anode and the cathode ("Dielectrophoresis is a technique that employs time-varying, or alternating current electric fields to apply a force to polarizable objects. The force relies on the difference in the polarizability of the system compared to its surrounding media (e.g. water)," Burke, paragraph 4).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackermann, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110025306 A1 ("Ackermann"), in view of Dumas, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20040118688 A1 ("Dumas"), Burke, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110162966 A1 ("Burke"), “Electrophoretic and Dielectrophoretic Field Gradient Technique for Separating Bioparticles.” Pysher, et al ("Pysher"), Chang, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20060060464 A1 ("Chang"), in further view of International Publication No. KR 20070092777 A ("Bang"). The machine translation for Bang is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 3, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. Paragraphs 29-33 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Chang, and the motivation of combining the references. The combination of references from Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Chang teaches a method comprising a cathode and the anode, and flowing the fluid, which is a liquid.
The combination of references does not teach an insulator located between the cathode and the anode; and flowing the fluid, which is a liquid, between the insulator and the anode.
Bang teaches an insulator located between the cathode and the anode and flowing the fluid, which is a liquid, between the insulator and the anode (insulator between the cathode and the anode, Bang, claims, paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Chang with the references of because the invention of Bang falls within the same field of innovation regarding a cathodes, anodes, and electrodes. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the limitations of insulator of Bang would prevents the anode from chemically reacting with the current collector during storage and creates a space (or channel) between the anode and the cathode; and a distance-maintaining means (housing) that allows the anode, the current collector, and the insulator to maintain predetermined distance from each other (Bang, pg 11).
Regarding Claim 13, paragraph 34 in the office action discusses the references from Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Chang, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 12. Paragraph 37-41 in the office action discusses the references from Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, Chang, and Bang, and the motivation of combining the references. The combination of references teaches a method comprising: an insulator located between the cathode wires and the at least one anode (insulator between the cathode and the anode, Bang, claims, paragraph 11), the cathode wires (electrodes may take the form of wires, Chang, paragraph 74) being coplanar and elongated in a direction offset from an elongation direction of the at least one anode (Ackerman, paragraph 72, Figure 4); and flowing the fluid, which is a liquid, between the insulator and the at least one anode (insulator between the cathode and the anode, Bang, claims, paragraph 11).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackermann, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110025306 A1 ("Ackermann"), in view of Dumas, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20040118688 A1 ("Dumas"), Burke, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110162966 A1 ("Burke"), “Electrophoretic and Dielectrophoretic Field Gradient Technique for Separating Bioparticles.” Pysher, et al ("Pysher"), Chang, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20060060464 A1 ("Chang"), International Publication No. KR 20070092777 A ("Bang"), in further view of Hedin, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20150217222 A1 ("Hedin"). The machine translation for Bang is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 4, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. Paragraph 37-41 in the office action discusses the references from Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, Chang, and Bang, and the motivation of combining the references. The combination of references teaches a method comprising: causing a non-uniform electric field to flow through the fluid from the cathode (create the nonuniform electric field therebetween , Ackerman, Figure 5), which that has multiple spaced apart ("plurality of cathodes spaced apart from each other and in parallel with each other," Chang, paragraph 75) and elongated wires (electrodes may take the form of pins, wires, rods, Chang, paragraph 74), to the anode which has an elongation direction angularly offset from the cathode wires (Ackerman, paragraph 72, Figure 4); flowing the fluid between an insulator and the anode, the insulator being located between the cathode and the anode ("liquid containing a cathode comes into contact with the space formed between the anode, cathode, and insulator," Bang, claims, paragraph 11), and having a dielectric constant greater than 10 (water, Ackerman, paragraph 72); powering the anode with 10-1,000 volts ("DC power can be adjusted between 0 and 600 VDC," Ackerman, paragraph 99) to cause ion movement by the combined electrophoresis (electrophoresis, Dumas, paragraph 8) and dielectrophoresis forces (dielectrophoresis, Dumas, paragraph 14); and the fluid is a liquid (Bang, claims, paragraph 11).
The combination of references does not teach the activated carbon includes biochar.
Hedin discloses the activated carbon includes biochar (Hydrothermally carbonized biomass, Hedin, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, Chang, and Bang with the references of Hedin because the invention of Hedin falls within the same field of innovation regarding an activated carbon. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the limitations of biochar of Hedin would improve stability of magnetic activated carbons (Hedin, paragraph 36).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackermann, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110025306 A1 ("Ackermann"), in view of Dumas, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20040118688 A1 ("Dumas"), Burke, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110162966 A1 ("Burke"), “Electrophoretic and Dielectrophoretic Field Gradient Technique for Separating Bioparticles.” Pysher, et al ("Pysher"), in further view of Nitta, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20130032491 A1 ("Nitta").
Regarding Claim 6, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. The combination of references teaches a method the combination of references discloses a method using water that interacts with a cathode and anode. Placing the fluid includes flowing water through an industrial water treatment piping system to which the anode and the cathode. The combination of references does not teach a method where the placing of the fluid includes flowing drinking through the gap between the cathode and the anode, which are attached to a water faucet.
Nitta teaches a method where the placing of the fluid includes flowing drinking water (“Pure water, tap water, etc. are used as raw material water,” Nitta, paragraph 119) through the gap between the cathode and the anode (“allowing raw material water to flow from either one of the anode and the cathode to pass through in right angle direction” Nitta, paragraph 63) (“anode 1” and “cathode 2” Nitta, Figure 5), which are attached to a water faucet (“electrolytic cell 8 installed at a tap water faucet 19” Nitta, paragraph 113, Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke with the references of Nitta because the invention of Nitta falls within the same field of innovation regarding a cathode, anode, and electrodes. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the limitations of using water, arrangement of the cathode and anode, and water faucet of Nitta would improve the discharge port of non-purified water (nitta, paragraph 62).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackermann, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110025306 A1 ("Ackermann"), in view of Dumas, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20040118688 A1 ("Dumas"), Burke, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110162966 A1 ("Burke"), “Electrophoretic and Dielectrophoretic Field Gradient Technique for Separating Bioparticles.” Pysher, et al ("Pysher"), in further view of Eckelberry, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20150122741 A1 ("Eckelberry").
Regarding Claim 7, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. The combination of references teaches a method, wherein the placing the fluid includes flowing water through an industrial water treatment piping system to which the anode and the cathode are attached (reaction chamber 1 comprises the cathode 3 and anode 13, Ackerman, Figure 1), an electrode-based precipitator (“reaction chamber 1,” Ackerman, Figure 8), sensors (flowmeter 105, Ackerman, Figure 8) and (“The capture flowmeter 105 and an integrated throttling valve monitor and control the flow during the capture cycle.” Ackerman, paragraph 107 and paragraph 43-44) and pipes. The combination of references does not teach the system comprising a contaminated supply reservoir, and a water pump.
Eckelberry teaches a system comprising a contaminated supply reservoir (“System 800 can comprise a wastewater source 801 that is contaminated with compounds,” Eckelberry, paragraph 66, Figure 8). (Figure 8 shows the wastewater source 801 is a tank), a water pump (pump 803, Eckelberry, paragraph 66, Figure 8) and pipes (Figure 8 shows the water flows through pipes, Eckelberry).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke with the references of Eckelberry because the invention of Eckelberry falls within the same field of innovation regarding a water treatment system. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because Ackerman explicitly suggests adding their system to existing water treatment systems. Furthermore, combining prior art elements (i.e., the water purification method of Ackerman with the water purification method of Eckelberry) to produce a predictable result (i.e., further purifying the water) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A))."
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackermann, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110025306 A1 ("Ackermann"), in view of Dumas, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20040118688 A1 ("Dumas"), Burke, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110162966 A1 ("Burke"), “Electrophoretic and Dielectrophoretic Field Gradient Technique for Separating Bioparticles.” Pysher, et al ("Pysher"), in further view of Fritze, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20180193779 A1 ("Fritze").
Regarding Claim 8, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. The combination of references teaches a method where the cathode is longitudinally elongated (Ackerman, paragraph 72, Figure 4) and cylindrical ("The outer tube 3 is typically the cathode", Ackerman, paragraph 64, Figure 5 and 6); the gap is cylindrical and surrounds the anode ("The center electrode 13 is typically the anode", Ackerman, paragraph 64, Figure 5 and 6); comprising an external housing (insulative housing 27, Ackerman, paragraph 65, Figure 1), gaskets (The O-ring seals for sealing the rod 13, Ackerman, paragraph 70), and fasteners (blocks 7 and 9, Ackerman, paragraph 65, Figure 1); further comprising stopping the fluid from flowing in the gap ("O-ring 42 between the exterior of a tube 44 and the interior of a socket 46 into which the tube is pushed. It will provide leak protection. However, the design causes a small gap to form between the exterior of the tube 44 and the interior of the socket 46," Ackerman, paragraph 71); stopping DC power supply to the anode ("DC power can be adjusted between 0 and 600 VDC," Ackerman, paragraph 99); from a stationary water treatment facility ("system for purifying already highly purified or liquids," Ackerman, paragraph 57) by disengaging the fasteners; comprising an anode and cathode, into the stationary water treatment facility ("system for purifying already highly purified or liquids," Ackerman, paragraph 57); thereafter supplying DC power to the anode ("DC power can be adjusted between 0 and 600 VDC," Ackerman, paragraph 99).
The combination of references does not disclose the cathode and anode are part of a cartridge and the removing of the cartridge after assembling a replacement cartridge after the assembling, resuming flowing the fluid through a gap in the replacement cartridge.
Fritze teaches a cathode and anode are part of a cartridge (treatment cartridge 200, Fritze, paragraph 78, Figure 3) and the removing of the cartridge ("removal and replacement and includes means for gripping the treatment cartridge 200," Fritze, paragraph 78, Figure 3) to initiate the replacement cartridge (treatment cartridge 200, Fritze, paragraph 78, Figure 3) after assembling, resuming flowing the fluid through a gap in the replacement cartridge ("removal and replacement and includes means for gripping the treatment cartridge 200," Fritze, paragraph 78, Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke with the references of Fritze because the invention of Fritze falls within the same field of innovation regarding a cathode, anode, and electrodes. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the limitations of the cartridge of Fritze would improve clean, fast, safe, and easy cartridge replacement at a low cost (Fritze, paragraph 28).
Regarding Claim 16, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. Paragraphs 55-59 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Fritze, and the motivation of combining the references. The combination of Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Fritze teaches a method where the electrodes are part of a cartridge comprising an external housing (treatment cartridge 200, Fritze, paragraph 78, Figure 3) comprising an external housing (insulative housing 27, Ackerman, paragraph 65, Figure 1), gaskets (The O-ring seals for sealing the rod 13, Ackerman, paragraph 70), and fasteners (blocks 7 and 9, Ackerman, paragraph 65, Figure 1); further comprising stopping the fluid from flowing in the gap ("O-ring 42 between the exterior of a tube 44 and the interior of a socket 46 into which the tube is pushed. It will provide leak protection. However, the design causes a small gap to form between the exterior of the tube 44 and the interior of the socket 46," Ackerman, paragraph 71); further comprising: further comprising stopping the fluid from flowing in the gap ("O-ring 42 between the exterior of a tube 44 and the interior of a socket 46 into which the tube is pushed. It will provide leak protection. However, the design causes a small gap to form between the exterior of the tube 44 and the interior of the socket 46," Ackerman, paragraph 71); stopping DC power supply to the electrode ("DC power can be adjusted between 0 and 600 VDC," Ackerman, paragraph 99); thereafter removing the cartridge ("removal and replacement and includes means for gripping the treatment cartridge 200," Fritze, paragraph 78, Figure 3) from a stationary water treatment facility by disengaging the fasteners; thereafter assembling a replacement cartridge (treatment cartridge 200, Fritze, paragraph 78, Figure 3), comprising an anode and cathode, into the stationary water treatment facility; thereafter supplying DC power to the anode ("DC power can be adjusted between 0 and 600 VDC," Ackerman, paragraph 99) of the replacement cartridge (treatment cartridge 200, Fritze, paragraph 78, Figure 3); and after the assembling, resuming flowing the fluid through a gap in the replacement cartridge ("removal and replacement and includes means for gripping the treatment cartridge 200," Fritze, paragraph 78, Figure 3).
Claims 9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackermann, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110025306 A1 ("Ackermann"), in view of Dumas, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20040118688 A1 ("Dumas"), Burke, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110162966 A1 ("Burke"), “Electrophoretic and Dielectrophoretic Field Gradient Technique for Separating Bioparticles.” Pysher, et al ("Pysher"), International Publication No. KR 20070092777 A ("Bang"), in further view of “Enhanced Adsorption of PFOA and PFOS on Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes under Electrochemical Assistance.” Li, et al ("Li"). The machine translation for Bang is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 9, paragraphs 17-22 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 1. The combination of Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke, teaches a method that contains an anode. The combination of references does not teach the trapping the smaller molecules includes removing PFAS molecules from the fluid by driving or pulling the PFAS molecules by driving or pulling the PFAS molecules toward the anode.
Li teaches trapping the smaller molecules which includes removing PFAS molecules from the fluid by driving or pulling the PFAS molecules (“electrosorption kinetics and isotherms of
PFOX [i.e., PFAS] under different polarization potentials were investigated,” Li, pg 8499, column 1, paragraph 2 and abstract) by driving or pulling the PFAS molecules toward the anode (“the initial adsorption rate could be improved under a low positive potential.” Li, pg 8501, column 2, lines 6-8) i.e., adsorption is improved when the working electrode is the anode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Ackerman, Dumas, and Burke with the references of Li because the invention of Li falls within the same field of innovation regarding a separation method using anodes. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the modification achieves the predictable benefit of removing PFAS, as taught by Li. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation for success making this modification as Li teaches PFAS molecules can be removed by adsorption onto an electrode. Furthermore, combining prior art elements to produce a predictable result establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 11, paragraphs 61-64 in the office action discuss the references from Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Li, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 9. The combination of Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Li, teaches " A method for removing an ionic cluster (particles, nano-particles, collids, molecules and ions, Ackerman, paragraph 18) in a liquid, the method comprising:
Powering at least one of multiple electrodes, with 10-1,000 volts (“DC power can be adjusted between 0 and 600 VDC," Ackerman, paragraph 99);
Creating an electric field between the electrodes (create the nonuniform electric field therebetween, Ackerman, Figure 5);
Flowing the liquid between the electrodes (“liquids 51 with trace amounts of contamination enter the removal zone 41 of the cylinder 3 under laminar flow conditions,” Ackerman, paragraph 72 and Figure 4);
Creating electrophoresis forces (electrophoresis, Dumas, paragraph 8) on the ionic cluster (ions, Ackerman, paragraph 18) in the liquid between the electrodes (“liquids 51 with trace amounts of contamination enter the removal zone 41 of the cylinder 3 under laminar flow conditions,” Ackerman, paragraph 72 and Figure 4);
Creating dielectrophoresis forces ("Dielectrophoresis is a technique that employs time-varying, or alternating current electric fields to apply a force to polarizable objects. The force relies on the difference in the polarizability of the system compared to its surrounding media (e.g. water)," Burke, paragraph 4) on the ionic cluster (ions, Ackerman, paragraph 18) in the liquid between the electrodes (“liquids 51 with trace amounts of contamination enter the removal zone 41 of the cylinder 3 under laminar flow conditions,” Ackerman, paragraph 72 and Figure 4);
Reducing a size of the ionic cluster in the liquid between the electrodes (“liquids 51 with trace amounts of contamination enter the removal zone 41 of the cylinder 3 under laminar flow conditions,” Ackerman, paragraph 72 and Figure 4); and
Causing at least a PFAS molecule of the ionic cluster to move toward activated carbon on the anode (“electrosorption kinetics and isotherms of PFOX [i.e., PFAS] under different polarization potentials were investigated,” Li, pg 8499, column 1, paragraph 2 and abstract) by driving or pulling the PFAS molecules toward the anode (“the initial adsorption rate could be improved under a low positive potential.” Li, pg 8501, column 2, lines 6-8) i.e., adsorption is improved when the working electrode is the anode).
Regarding Claim 15, paragraph 65 in the office action discusses the references from Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Li, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 11. The combination of Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Li, teaches a method where at least one of the electrodes comprises concentrically arranged at least first and second cylindrical anodes (electrode/rod 13, Ackerman, paragraph 64, Figure 4); at least another of the electrodes comprises concentrically arranged at least first and second cylindrical cathodes (outer tube 3, Ackerman, paragraph 64, Figure 4); and the first and second cylindrical anodes are located between the cylindrical cathodes ("The outer tube 3 is typically the cathode and the center electrode 13 is typically the anode", Ackerman, paragraph 64, Figure 5 and 6); further comprising flowing the liquid between the cylindrical cathodes and between the cylindrical anodes ("liquid containing a cathode comes into contact with the space formed between the anode, cathode, and insulator," Bang, claims, paragraph 11), while moving the PFAS molecule toward the anodes and removing the PFAS molecule from the liquid (“electrosorption kinetics and isotherms of PFOX [i.e., PFAS] under different polarization potentials were investigated,” Li, pg 8499, column 1, paragraph 2 and abstract) by driving or pulling the PFAS molecules toward the anode (“the initial adsorption rate could be improved under a low positive potential.” Li, pg 8501, column 2, lines 6-8) i.e., adsorption is improved when the working electrode is the anode).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackermann, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110025306 A1 ("Ackermann"), in view of Dumas, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20040118688 A1 ("Dumas"), Burke, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20110162966 A1 ("Burke"), “Electrophoretic and Dielectrophoretic Field Gradient Technique for Separating Bioparticles.” Pysher, et al ("Pysher"), International Publication No. KR 20070092777 A ("Bang"), “Enhanced Adsorption of PFOA and PFOS on Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes under Electrochemical Assistance.” Li, et al ("Li"), Means, et al., U.S. Patent No. 4073712 A ("Means"), in further view of Fan, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20160322174 A1 ("Fan"). The machine translation for Bang is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 14, paragraph 65 in the office action discusses the references from Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Li, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of Claim 11. The combination of Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Li, teaches a method causing a non-uniform electric field to flow through the liquid (create the nonuniform electric field therebetween, Ackerman, Figure 5) in which the fluid includes water.
The combination of references does not teach flowing the fluid between an insulator and at least one of the electrodes, the insulator having a dielectric constant greater than 10 and an activated carbon that includes plasma-activated biochar.
Means teaches flowing the fluid between an insulator and at least one of the electrodes, the insulator having a dielectric constant greater than 10 ("insulated by a coating or sheath 4 of dielectric material, such as Teflon, certain epoxies, Mylar, hard anodized aluminum, certain ceramics or other like dielectric material," Means, column 3, line 4-11, Figure 5).
Fan teaches an activated carbon includes plasma-activated biochar (plasma activation of biochar 101, Fan, paragraph 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Ackerman, Dumas, Burke, and Li with the references of Means and Fan because the invention of Means and Fan falls within the same field of innovation regarding a separation using electrodes. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the limitations of the dielectric constant of Means and the limitation of plasma activation of biochar of Fan would improve the performance of activated carbon, Fan, paragraph 76). The insulator prevents the anode from chemically reacting with the current collector during storage and creates a space (or channel) between the anode and the cathode; and a distance-maintaining means (housing) that allows the anode, the current collector, and the insulator to maintain a predetermined distance from each other (Bang, pg 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DeMarkus J Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-3593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/DeMarkus Jerrell Hodge/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights