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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, as well as species A and C (Claims 1-8, and 10-11) in the reply filed on August 10, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 9 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 10, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “applying high voltage to the first and second group of electrodes” should be corrected to read “applying high voltage to the first and second groups of electrodes” for grammatical consistency.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the second group of electrodes have a curvature that is substantially greater than the first group of electrodes” should be corrected to read “the second group of electrodes has a curvature that is substantially greater than that of the first group of electrodes” for grammatical consistency and proper comparison.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the second group of electrodes comprise a wire mesh” should be corrected to read “the second group of electrodes comprises a wire mesh” for grammatical consistency.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “between the first group of electrodes and second group of electrodes” should be corrected to read “between the first group of electrodes and the second group of electrodes” for grammatical consistency.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the first group of electrodes comprise parallel plates and the second group of electrodes comprise wires running between the plates” should be corrected to read “the first group of electrodes comprises parallel plates and the second group of electrodes comprises wires running between the plates” for grammatical consistency.
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 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “substantially greater than,” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a clear standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed curvature.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “oxygen or nitrogen-containing compounds,” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to oxygen as a separate reducible species and nitrogen-containing compounds, or to oxygen-containing compounds and nitrogen-containing compounds. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as referring to oxygen-containing compounds or nitrogen-containing compounds.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over METSA (US20090277775A1, hereinafter METSA).
Regarding Claim 1, METSA discloses a unique reactor design and method for removing chemical and biological contaminants from a contaminated fluid (¶[0002]). FIG. 1 illustrates a sealed, sequential multi-stage reactor 10 having reaction vessels 14 with an upper end region 16 and a lower end region 18. Contaminated fluid 12 enters through fluid inlet port 20, passes through scrubbing stage 19, operational stage 21, and base stage 23, and treated liquid 24 exits through fluid outlet port 22. A gaseous phase enters through gas inlet port 26 and can include a reducing gas comprising 3% hydrogen in nitrogen. The gaseous phase passes through reaction chambers 30 and exits through gas outlet port 28 (¶[0020]–¶[0021]).
In operation, a pulsed-corona discharge is created between gas phase electrode 40 and liquid phase electrode 44 in reaction chamber 30, with gas phase electrode 40 connected to electrical power supply 42, preferably by high voltage wire 90. The pulsed-corona discharge generates reactive species, such as ozone or hydrazine, in situ and preferably includes ultraviolet radiation. It is believed that highly reactive species are transferred across gas-liquid interface 48, and those species destroy bacterial and chemical contaminants in contaminated fluid 12. The corona is preferably counter-current to liquid flow (¶[0024]–¶[0025]).
The generation of reactive species in situ may be enhanced by the addition of oxidizing agents such as oxygen in the gas phase or hydrogen peroxide in the liquid phase, while the generation of reducing reactive species in situ may be enhanced by reducing agents such as 3% hydrogen in the gas phase (¶[0027]).
PNG
media_image1.png
991
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of METSA
Each reaction chamber 30 receives a liquid stream, while a controlled gas stream flows upwardly counter-current to the liquid, with the gas and liquid preferably separated by a quiescent interface. Gas phase electrode 40 is installed through an orifice in reaction vessel 14, and the pulsed-corona discharge is generated at gas-liquid interface 48 (¶[0043]–¶[0044]).
Based on the disclosure, the reactor includes gas phase electrodes and liquid phase electrodes, which correspond to the first group of electrodes and second group of electrodes, respectively, and provide a discharge zone where the pulsed-corona discharge is generated.
The process generates oxidizing or reducing reactive species in situ, with their reactivity augmented by intense ultraviolet irradiation. Strong oxidants are produced in sufficient quantities to rapidly degrade a wide range of organic and hetero-atomatic molecular species (¶[0055]).
As a result of the pulsed-corona treatment, streamer coronas propagate from the needle point and numerous points on the Reticulated Vitreous Carbon (RVC) electrode to the fluid surface, with streamers present in both the gas and liquid phases and producing ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radicals, and ultraviolet light. In active corona stages, destruction of phenol and Reactive Blue 137 was tested. The phenol concentration was reduced by 60% after 160 minutes of operation (¶[0065]–¶[0066]).
Based on the disclosure, the pulsed-corona treatment is capable of degrading organic contaminants in contaminated water, as demonstrated by the decrease in phenol concentration. In view of the disclosed generation of reducing reactive species and treatment of a wide range of organic compounds, a person skilled in the art would have reasonably expected the hydrogen-containing pulsed-corona treatment to reduce at least some persistent organic compounds through attack by the generated reducing species.
Regarding Claim 2, METSA makes obvious the method for treating contaminated water of Claim 1. METSA discloses that the high-voltage electrode is a 0.75 mm nickel-chromium wire. The opposing gas-phase electrode is a grounded RVC electrode shaped as a circle with symmetrical concave regions removed on both sides (¶[0063]–¶[0064]).
Regarding the limitation “the second group of electrodes have a curvature that is substantially greater than the first group of electrodes,” the particular relative curvature of the opposing electrodes would have been an obvious matter of design choice. METSA already discloses opposing electrodes having different geometries for generating the pulsed-corona discharge, and selecting their relative curvature would merely involve choosing an electrode geometry for that discharge, absent any showing of criticality or unexpected results associated with the particular curvature relationship (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672–73; 1966).
Regarding Claim 3, METSA makes obvious the method for treating contaminated water of Claim 1. METSA discloses that the high-voltage electrode is a 0.75 mm nickel-chromium wire. The opposing gas-phase electrode is a grounded Reticulated Vitreous Carbon (RVC) electrode secured to a steel screen and rod assembly (¶[0063]–¶[0064]).
Regarding the limitation “the second group of electrodes comprise a wire mesh,” the particular configuration of the wire electrode as a mesh would have been an obvious matter of design choice. METSA already discloses a nickel-chromium wire used as a high-voltage electrode and a steel screen used as part of the opposing electrode assembly. Arranging the wire electrode in a mesh configuration would merely involve selecting a different electrode geometry for the pulsed-corona discharge, absent any showing of criticality or unexpected results associated with the particular wire-mesh configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672–73; 1966).
Regarding Claim 4, METSA makes obvious the method for treating contaminated water of Claim 1. METSA discloses that the gaseous phase can include a reducing gas comprising 3% hydrogen in nitrogen (¶[0021]).
Regarding Claim 6, METSA makes obvious the method for treating contaminated water of Claim 1. METSA discloses that contaminated liquid entering reaction vessel 14 through fluid inlet port 20 is ducted through and dispersed by liquid distribution system 96, such as sprays or nozzles. The distribution system disperses the contaminated fluid as it enters scrubbing stage 19 (¶[0029]).
Regarding Claim 8, METSA makes obvious the method for treating contaminated water of Claim 1. METSA discloses a reaction vessel having a fluid inlet port through which contaminated fluid enters and a fluid outlet port through which treated liquid exits. The inlet and outlet ports are sized to permit a continuous flow (¶[0010]–¶[0011]).
Regarding Claim 10, METSA makes obvious the method for treating contaminated water of Claim 1. METSA discloses pulsed-corona treatment of phenol in contaminated water. The phenol concentration was reduced by 60% after 160 minutes of operation (¶[0065]–¶[0066]). The disclosed phenol is an oxygen-containing organic compound.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over METSA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GANJIGUNTE RAMASWAMY et al. (US20220212959A1, hereinafter RAMASWAMY).
Regarding Claims 5 and 7, METSA makes obvious the method for treating contaminated water of Claim 1. However, METSA does not explicitly disclose that the persistent organic compounds include at least one of fluorinated, chlorinated, and brominated compounds of Claim 5, or that the discharge cell includes a dielectric barrier between the first group of electrodes and second group of electrodes of Claim 7.
RAMASWAMY discloses a similar process using plasma to degrade compounds (¶[0002]). The process uses an independently generated plasma with tunable electron energy, electron density, and radical chemistry, together with reactive gases including hydrogen and ammonia, to enhance degradation of fluorinated compounds in aerosol droplets injected into the plasma afterglow (¶[0020]).
An aerosol of an aqueous liquid is formed and directed into a non-thermal plasma. Contaminants degraded by the plasma include polyfluoroalkyl substances, perfluoroalkyl substances, and perfluorooctanoic acid (¶[0029]–¶[0030]). The disclosed contaminants are fluorinated compounds.
The plasma is generated using a dielectric barrier discharge system that includes a quartz tube. A hollow copper tube 1 serves as a high-voltage dielectric-enclosed electrode, and a copper ring 3 fitted to the quartz tube serves as the ground electrode. Dielectric barrier discharge plasma is generated between the inner and outer electrodes in the headspace. A stable discharge is obtained by tuning the applied voltage and frequency (¶[0032]–¶[0033]).
The plasma treatment disclosed by RAMASWAMY promotes defluorination of PFAS through free and solvated electrons (¶[0006]). Furthermore, the dielectric barrier discharge arrangement provides a stable plasma discharge for treating PFAS dissolved in water through adjustment of the applied voltage and frequency (¶[0032]–¶[0033]). In view of METSA’s use of reducing gases to generate reactive species for treating contaminated water, a person skilled in the art would incorporate the dielectric barrier discharge arrangement into the discharge cell, with a dielectric barrier between the opposing electrode groups, and apply the plasma treatment to water contaminated with PFAS to predictably promote defluorination while maintaining a stable discharge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the dielectric barrier discharge arrangement for treating water contaminated with PFAS, as disclosed by RAMASWAMY, into the discharge cell in the method for treating contaminated water by METSA.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over METSA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GUTSOL et al. (US20100006419A1, hereinafter GUTSOL).
Regarding Claim 11, METSA makes obvious the method for treating contaminated water of Claim 1. METSA discloses that the high-voltage electrode is a 0.75 mm nickel-chromium wire (¶[0063]). However, METSA does not explicitly disclose that the first group of electrodes comprise parallel plates and the second group of electrodes comprise wires running between the plates.
GUTSOL discloses a method and system for generating high-voltage, pulsed, periodic corona discharge for environmental control (¶[0002]). The method generates high-voltage, pulsed, periodic corona discharges in the presence of conductive liquid droplets while maintaining high energy efficiency and is used to clean gaseous or liquid media. The pulses facilitate plasma chemical oxidation of impurities and increase the range of stable discharge operation in the presence of water droplets or other conductive liquids in the discharge chamber (¶[0014]–¶[0015]). FIG. 2 illustrates discharge chamber electrodes 20 arranged as alternating rows of parallel plates 26 with sharp cogs and rods 28 (¶[0018]).
PNG
media_image2.png
661
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2 of GUTSOL
The electrode arrangement disclosed by GUTSOL permits passage of liquid spray or fog droplets and minimizes formation of continuous conductive-liquid streams that can short-circuit the discharge, increasing pulsed-corona discharge stability (¶[0018]). In view of METSA’s use of pulsed-corona discharge to treat contaminated water, a person skilled in the art would incorporate the parallel-plate arrangement into the discharge cell, with the first group comprising parallel plates and the wire electrodes of the second group running between the plates, to predictably facilitate passage of water droplets and reduce short-circuiting of the discharge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the parallel-plate electrode arrangement, as disclosed by GUTSOL, into the discharge cell in the method for treating contaminated water by METSA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
