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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/31/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, the IDS cites a plurality of foreign patent documents and non-patent literature publications, but no copies of these documents and publications were provided.
Claim Objections
Claims 23 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 lines 14-18 have excess indentation, which makes it appear that the “an electrodialysis unit” is a sub-component of the “a urea decomposition unit”, the indentation should be decreased to make it clearer that the “an electrodialysis unit” is a component of the “dialysis fluid cleansing device”;
Claim 41 line 18 has an extra comma after “electrodialysis,”.
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 29, 34-38 and 40-42 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 29, claim 29 recites the limitations “a first bipolar membrane, … a first ion exchange membrane, and a second ion exchange membrane,” in lines 1-3. However, claim 24, from which claim 29 depends, already recites “a first bipolar membrane”, “a first ion exchange membrane”, and “a second ion exchange membrane”. Furthermore, the membrane arrangements recited in claims 24 and 29 are mutually exclusive.
Specifically, claim 24 recites the membrane arrangement depicted in Fig. 6 having alternating bipolar and monopolar membranes, while claim 29 recites the membrane arrangement depicted in Fig. 4, having two monopolar membranes arranged between a pair of bipolar membranes.
Claim 29 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 29 to depend from claim 23.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 recites the limitation “which is configured to accept used dialysis fluid as the salt solution”. However, it is unclear what is configured to accept used dialysis solution as the salt solution.
Specifically, claim 23 is a method claim, and it is unclear how a method could be “configured to accept” a solution.
Claim 34 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 34 to read e.g., “wherein the salt solution comprises used dialysis fluid”.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 depends from claim 34, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 34.
Claim 35 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites “which includes a tank for the salt solution”. However, it is not clear which component used in the method is intended to include the recited “tank for the salt solution”. I.e., whether the tank is a subcomponent of the “dialysis cleansing device”, the “urea decomposition unit”, or the “electrodialysis unit”.
Claim 36 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 recites the limitation “which is configured to accept the basic stream having NaOH”. However, it is unclear what is configured to accept the basic stream having NaOH.
Specifically, claim 23 is a method claim, and it is unclear how a method could be “configured to accept” a stream.
Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the basic stream having NaOH”. Specifically, claim 23 recites “a basic stream”, but does not recite “a basic stream having NaOH”. It is therefore unclear if this limitation is intended to refer to the “basic stream” and, if so, whether it is indented to further limit this stream such that it comprises NaOH.
Claim 37 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 recites the limitation “which is configured to accept the acid stream having HCl”. However, it is unclear what is configured to accept the basic stream having HCl.
Specifically, claim 23 is a method claim, and it is unclear how a method could be “configured to accept” a stream.
Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the acid stream having HCl”. Specifically, claim 23 recites “an acid stream”, but does not recite “an acid stream having HCl”. It is therefore unclear if this limitation is intended to refer to the “acid stream” and, if so, whether it is indented to further limit this stream such that it comprises HCl.
Claim 38 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 recites the limitation “which is configured to apply a voltage difference”. However, it is unclear what is configured to apply a voltage difference.
Specifically, claim 23 is a method claim, and it is unclear how a method could be “configured to apply a voltage difference”.
Claim 40 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 41, claim 41 recites the limitation “subsequently passing the used dialysis having urea fluid through an electrodialysis unit” in line 12. However, the “used dialysis fluid” is converted to “cleansed dialysis fluid” in the “urea decomposition unit”. It is therefore unclear how “used dialysis fluid” could be “subsequently” passed through an electrodialysis unit.
Furthermore, claim 41 recites the terms “the used dialysis having urea fluid” and “the used dialysis fluid” in lines 12 and 18, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claim. Specifically, claim 41 recites “a used dialysis fluid having urea” in line 1, but does not recite “a used dialysis having urea fluid” or “a used dialysis fluid”.
Claim 41 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 42, claim 42 recites the terms “the used dialysis having urea fluid” and “the used dialysis fluid” in lines 12 and 18, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claim. Specifically, claim 42 recites “a used dialysis fluid having urea” in line 1, but does not recite “a used dialysis having urea fluid” or “a used dialysis fluid”.
Claim 42 is therefore indefinite.
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 23-28, 31-36, and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11052183 B2 (the reference patent) in view of Pudil (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0158623 A1) and Simonis (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0240361 A1).
Regarding claim 23, claim 17 of the reference patent recites a method of cleaning a used dialysis fluid having urea to produce a cleansed dialysis fluid, the method comprising (claim 1 lines 1-2):
passing the used dialysis fluid having urea through a dialysis fluid cleansing device including (claim 1 lines 3-4):
a urea decomposition unit comprising (claim 1 line 5):
an alkaline polymeric gel (claim 17 lines 1-2);
an inlet for entry of used dialysis fluid having urea (claim 1 lines 5-6);
an outlet for outputting cleansed dialysis fluid (claim 1 lines 6-7); and
a first set of electrodes including an anode and a cathode having an electrocatalytic surface on the anode for decomposition of urea via electrooxidation (claim 1 lines 7-12),
and an electrodialysis unit comprising a second set of electrodes including a cathode, an anode having an electrocatalytic surface on the anode for separation of a salt solution via electrodialysis, wherein the salt solution is separated into an acid stream and a basic stream (claim 1 lines 13-16),
wherein at least one of (i) the basic stream from the electrodialysis unit is placed in fluid communication with the inlet of the urea decomposition unit, (ii) the acid stream from the electrodialysis unit is placed in fluid communication with the outlet of the urea decomposition unit, or (iii) the acid stream is circulated through the electrodialysis unit (claim 1 lines 19-26), and wherein the at least one of (i) to (iii) aids in forming the cleansed dialysis fluid outputted from the urea decomposition unit (see below);
wherein passing the used dialysis fluid having urea through the dialysis fluid cleansing device comprises contacting the used dialysis fluid with the electrocatalytic surface of the anode in the electrodialysis unit (claim 1 lines 27-30).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the at least one of (i) to (iii) aids in forming the cleansed dialysis fluid outputted from the urea decomposition unit”, this limitation is drawn to the intended result of following the recited method steps. It is therefore considered that the method as recited in claim 17 of the reference patent will necessarily yield this result (MPEP §§ 2111.04(I) and 2112).
Claim 17 of the reference patent does not explicitly recite the electrodialysis unit comprises at least two of a bipolar membrane, a cation exchange membrane, and an anion exchange membrane between the anode and the cathode of the second set of electrodes.
However, as taught by e.g., Pudil, electrodialysis systems typically comprise at least two1 such membranes separating the electrodes (see e.g., Figs. 7-9 and para. 317).
As Pudil teaches a method for purifying used dialysis fluid via electrodialysis, Pudil 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 method of the reference claim, such that the electrodialysis system comprises at least two of a bipolar membrane, a cation exchange membrane, and an anion exchange membrane between the anode and the cathode of the second set of electrodes, as taught by e.g., Pudil. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it allows the separation of the feed into acid and base streams while maintaining separate electrolyte compartments, as taught by Pudil. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 17 of the reference patent does not explicitly recite the anode of the first set of electrodes comprises cobalt, copper, iron, nickel, platinum, palladium, iridium, ruthenium, rhodium, mixtures thereof, or alloys thereof.
However, Simonis teaches a method for the removal of urea from dialysis fluid by electrooxidation (e.g., abstract), wherein the anode catalyst comprises nickel, platinum, iridium, ruthenium, or mixtures or alloys thereof (“The catalytic electrodes are preferably planar, circular, tubular or thread electrodes made from Pt, Ni, Ti, Ir, Sn, Ta and Ru and their oxides or hydroxide form such as TiO2, RuO2, RiO2, SnO2, Ta2O3, NiO and NiOOH and Ni(OH)2 or mixtures thereof.” para. 79).
As Simonis teaches a method for the removal of urea from dialysis fluid via electrooxidation, Simonis 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 method of claim 17 of the reference patent, such that the anode electrocatalyst comprises nickel, platinum, iridium, ruthenium, or mixtures or alloys thereof, as taught by Simonis. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Simonis teaches these are suitable electrocatalysts for decomposing urea. Use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 23 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 24, modified claim 17 of the reference patent further teaches, via Pudil, the electrodialysis unit comprises a first cell including a first bipolar membrane, a first ion exchange membrane, and a second ion exchange membrane, wherein the first ion exchange membrane is positioned next to one side of the first bipolar membrane and the second ion exchange membrane is positioned next to an opposite side of the first bipolar membrane, thereby forming a first compartment between the first bipolar membrane and the first ion exchange membrane and a second compartment between the first bipolar membrane and the second ion exchange membrane (“a stack of bipolar and cation exchange membranes to result in alternating flow channels” para. 314 and Fig. 6).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 24 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 25, modified claim 17 of the reference patent further teaches, via Pudil, the first ion exchange membrane is a cation exchange membrane (“a stack of bipolar and cation exchange membranes to result in alternating flow channels” para. 314 and Fig. 6).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 25 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 26, the limitations of claim 24 are rendered obvious by modified claim 17 of the reference patent, as described above.
Modified claim 17 of the reference patent further teaches, via Pudil, the second ion exchange membrane is a cation exchange membrane (“a stack of bipolar and cation exchange membranes to result in alternating flow channels” para. 314 and Fig. 6).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 26 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 27, the limitations of claim 24 are rendered obvious by modified claim 17 of the reference patent, as described above.
Modified claim 17 of the reference patent further teaches, via Pudil, the electrodialysis unit further comprises a second cell including a second bipolar membrane and a third ion exchange membrane, wherein the second cell is positioned next to the first cell, and wherein the second bipolar membrane is positioned between the second ion exchange membrane of the first cell and the third ion exchange membrane, thereby forming a third compartment between the second bipolar membrane and the third ion exchange membrane (“a stack of bipolar and cation exchange membranes to result in alternating flow channels” para. 314 and Fig. 6).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 27 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 28, modified claim 17 of the reference patent further teaches, via Pudil, the first, second, and third ion exchange membranes are cation exchange membranes (“a stack of bipolar and cation exchange membranes to result in alternating flow channels” para. 314 and Fig. 6).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 28 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 31, the limitations of claim 23 are rendered obvious by modified claim 17 of the reference patent, as described above.
Claim 17 of the reference patent further recites the urea decomposition unit further comprises a power source, and the power source in the urea decomposition unit provides the first set of electrodes with an electrical charge to activate the electrocatalytic surface of the first set of electrodes (lines 9-11).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 31 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 32, the limitations of claim 23 are rendered obvious by modified claim 17 of the reference patent, as described above.
Claim 17 of the reference patent further recites the electrodialysis unit further comprises a power source, and the power source in the electrodialysis unit provides the second set of electrodes with an electrical charge to split water in a bipolar membrane into H+ and OH- (lines 14-16).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 32 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 33, the limitations of claim 23 are rendered obvious by modified claim 17 of the reference patent, as described above.
Modified claim 17 of the reference patent further recites, via Pudil, the electrodialysis unit separates the salt solution via bipolar membrane electrodialysis (para. 314).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 33 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 has been interpreted as “wherein the electrodialysis unit is configured to accept used dialysis fluid as the salt solution”.
Modified claim 17 of the reference patent further recites, via Pudil, the electrodialysis unit is configured to accept used dialysis fluid as the salt solution (“dialysate from the dialysate reservoir 48 is utilized as the concentrate solution.” para. 318 and Fig. 8).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 34 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 35, modified claim 17 of the reference patent does not explicitly recite the used dialysis fluid includes one or more salts selected from the group consisting of: a sodium salt, a magnesium salt, a calcium salt, a lactate salt, a carbonate salt, an acetate salt, a citrate salt, and a phosphate salt.
However, Pudil further teaches the used dialysis fluid includes at least sodium (para. 318), magnesium, calcium, and phosphate salts (para. 290).
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 method of claim 17 of the reference claim, such that the used dialysis fluid comprises at least one of these salts, as taught by Pudil. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow the purification of used dialysis fluid comprising these components. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 35 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 has been interpreted as “wherein the dialysis fluid cleansing device further includes a tank for the salt solution”.
The limitations of claim 23 are rendered obvious by modified claim 17 of the reference patent, as described above.
Claim 17 of the reference claim does not recite a tank for the salt solution.
However, Pudil further teaches the used dialysis fluid used as the salt solution may suitably be stored in a tank (“Dialysate reservoir 48” para. 306 and Fig. 2).
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 method of claim 17 of the reference patent, by adding a tank for the salt solution to the dialysis fluid cleansing device, as taught by Pudil. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Pudil teaches the salt solution may suitably be stored in a tank. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 36 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 39, the limitations of claim 23 are rendered obvious by modified claim 17 of the reference patent, as described above.
Modified claim 17 of the reference patent further teaches, via Simonis, the anode in the urea decomposition unit comprises nickel, nickel oxide, nickel hydroxide, or nickel oxide hydroxide (NiOOH) (para. 79).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 39 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 has been interpreted as “wherein a voltage difference sufficient to produce nitrogen gas, carbon dioxide, and water is applied across the cathode and the anode in the urea decomposition unit”.
The limitations of claim 23 are rendered obvious by modified claim 17 of the reference patent, as described above.
Modified claim 17 of the reference patent does not recite a voltage difference sufficient to produce nitrogen gas, carbon dioxide, and water is applied across the cathode and the anode in the urea decomposition unit.
However, Simonis further teaches a voltage difference sufficient to produce nitrogen gas, carbon dioxide, and water is applied across the cathode and the anode in the urea decomposition unit (e.g., para. 38).
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 method of claim 17 of the reference patent, by adding a step of applying a voltage difference sufficient to produce nitrogen gas, carbon dioxide, and water is across the cathode and the anode in the urea decomposition unit, as taught by Simonis. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of gasifying the urea in the dialysate, as taught by Simonis. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Thus, each of the limitations of claim 40 are rendered obvious by claim 17 of the reference patent in view of Pudil and Simonis. Therefore, a rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is warranted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 41 and 42 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Furthermore, claim 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 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.
Furthermore, claims 23-28, 31-33, and 39 would be allowable if the rejection(s) on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting set forth in this Office action were overcome.
Furthermore, claims 34-36 and 40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 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 AND if the rejection(s) on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting set forth in this Office action were overcome.
No determination regarding non-statutory double patenting could be made for claims 37 or 38 as currently drafted. However, these claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 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 AND upon filing a terminal disclaimer over US Pat. 11052183 B2.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 23, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or disclose the cumulative limitations of claim 23, with a particular emphasis on the limitation “a urea decomposition unit comprising: an alkaline polymeric gel”.
The closest prior art is considered to be Matsumoto (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0353401 A1), Simonis (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0240361 A1), and Pudil (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0158623 A1).
Matsumoto teaches a method of treating wastewater comprising urea (abstract) comprising a wastewater cleansing device (Fig. 2) including:
a urea decomposition unit (“diamond-electrode electrolysis device 2” para. 27 and Fig. 2) comprising:
an inlet and an outlet (see Fig. 2); and
a first set of electrodes including an anode and a cathode having an electrocatalytic surface on the anode (“diamond electrode” para. 47) for the decomposition of urea via electrooxidation (“a diamond-electrode electrolysis device in which organic substances, urea, and other nitrogen compounds contained in water discharged from the cation-exchange device are decomposed;” abstract); and
an electrodialysis unit (“electrodialysis device 4” para. 27 and Fig. 2) comprising a second set of electrodes including a cathode, an anode having an electrocatalytic surface on the anode for separation of a salt solution via electrodialysis (para. 46 and Fig. 3), two bipolar membranes, a cation exchange membrane, and an anion exchange membrane between the anode and the cathode of the second set of electrodes (para. 46), wherein the salt solution is separated into an acid stream and a basic stream (para. 23 and Fig. 2),
wherein (i) the basic stream from the electrodialysis unit is placed in fluid communication with the inlet of the urea decomposition unit (Fig. 1 and para. 37), aiding in formation of the cleansed water outputted from the urea decomposition unit (para. 37).
While Matsumoto does not teach the wastewater is used dialysate solution, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use used dialysate as the wastewater based on the teachings of Simonis and/or Pudil.
However, Matsumoto does not teach the electrooxidation cell comprises an alkaline polymeric gel, and no suggestion for using such an alkaline polymeric gel for the electrooxidation of urea (or dialysate in general) could be identified in the prior art.
Furthermore, Matsumoto does not teach the anode of the first set of electrodes comprises cobalt, copper, …, but rather teaches the anode comprises diamond, and explicitly indicates diamond is required for degrading urea (“There are some organic substances such as urea and bilirubin, which has low degradability, that cannot be decomposed using an electrolysis device including a general-industrial-electrolysis-purpose electrode such as a platinum electrode. However, use of the diamond-electrode electrolysis device enables urea and bilirubin, which has low degradability, to be decomposed.” para. 10, emphasis added). A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably have expected modifying the anode material of Matsumoto to yield a functional system.
Additionally, Matsumoto does not teach the dialysis fluid contacts the anode of the electrodialysis unit, but rather indicates it is separated from the anode by the ion exchange membranes.
Matsumoto, alone or in combination, therefore cannot reasonably render the cumulative limitations of claim 23 obvious.
Simonis teaches a system for cleaning a used dialysis fluid having urea to produce a cleansed dialysis fluid (para. 21) the method comprising:
passing the used dialysis fluid having urea through a dialysis fluid cleansing device (“a device” para. 20) including:
a urea decomposition unit (“ii) an electrocatalytic decomposition filter for removing urea,” para. 22) comprising:
an inlet and an outlet (para. 21); and
a first set of electrodes including an anode and a cathode having an electrocatalytic surface on the anode for decomposition of urea via electrooxidation (para. 23), wherein the anode of the first set of electrodes comprises nickel, platinum, iridium, ruthenium, or mixtures or alloys thereof (“The catalytic electrodes are preferably planar, circular, tubular or thread electrodes made from Pt, Ni, Ti, Ir, Sn, Ta and Ru and their oxides or hydroxide form such as TiO2, RuO2, RiO2, SnO2, Ta2O3, NiO and NiOOH and Ni(OH)2 or mixtures thereof.” para. 79).
While Simonis does not teach an electrodialysis unit, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add one based on the teachings of Matsumoto and/or Pudil.
However, as described above, the electrodialysis unit of Matsumoto does not read on each of the relevant claim limitations. Therefore, the cumulative limitations of claim 23 are not rendered obvious by Simonis in view of Matsumoto.
Furthermore, as with Matsumoto, the used dialysis fluid does not contact the anode in the electrodialysis unit of Pudil. Therefore, the cumulative limitations of claim 23 are not rendered obvious by Simonis in view of Pudil.
Additionally, Simonis does not teach the electrooxidation cell comprises an alkaline polymeric electrolyte.
Thus, Matsumoto, Simonis, and Pudil, alone or in combination, do not reasonably teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 23.
Therefore, claim 23 is considered patentably distinguished over the prior art, and would be allowable if the rejections on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting were addressed.
Regarding claims 24-40, claims 24-40 depend from claim 23, and therefore incorporate the patentably distinct subject matter of claim 23. Therefore, claims 24-40 are patentably distinguished over the prior art for at least the reasons enumerated for claim 23, above.
Regarding claims 41 and 42, claims 41 and 42 require the urea decomposition unit to comprise an alkaline polymeric gel.
As described for claim 23, above, this limitation is not reasonably taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Claims 41 and 42 are therefore patentably distinguished over the prior art, and would be allowable if amended to address the ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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
1 Furthermore, an electrodialysis system necessarily comprises at least one such membrane.
