Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2023-0096040, filed on 12/13/2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show where the “sub-ion depletion region” exists within the apparatus, as described in the specification. The claims and specification state this “sub-ion depletion region” is within the ion depletion region, but further describes it as “corresponding to pores of an ion exchange membrane”. The ion exchange membrane however, is not drawn to be within the ion depletion region borders outlined in the figures. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Spelling: The term “dorm-shaped” should be corrected to “dome-shaped” in all locations within the application. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the application was examined interpreting “dorm-shaped” as “dome-shaped”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
To promote clarity and efficiency in the examination process (compact prosecution), the following terms as outlined below are interpreted, but not limited to, the following:
Ion Concentration Polarization – an electric field applied across an ion-selective material
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.
Claims 1-20 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. The preamble of claim 1 mentions an “electrokinetic-based apparatus for filtering”, but does not define sufficient structural elements for the apparatus and how this it’s filtering charged particles. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (US20210346844A1).
With respect to claim 1, Han teaches an electrokinetic-based apparatus {¶ 6} for filtering charged particles {¶ 19} comprising: a main channel {¶ 10} where fluid containing the charged particles {¶ 19} is injected {Fig. 2f, arrow representing the flow of liquid} and flows {¶ 10}; a first electrode {¶ 8} disposed to allow flow in the main channel {Fig. 2f Ref. Anode}; and an ion exchange membrane {¶ 10} disposed downstream of the first electrode {Fig. 2f Ref. MP-CEM,
PNG
media_image1.png
478
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
}
and having a plurality of pores {¶ 10} through which the fluid from which the charged particles have been filtered is discharged {Fig. 2f, arrow representing effluent flow}.
With respect to claim 2, the first electrode and ion exchange membrane generate an electric field therebetween {¶ 19}.
With respect to claim 3, Han teaches a polarity different from that of charged particles {¶ 64} to be filtered is applied to the first electrode {Fig. 2f Ref. Anode}, the ion exchange membrane for ions of a polarity different from that of charged particles to be filtered {Fig. 2f Ref. MP-CEM,
PNG
media_image1.png
478
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
},
and the second electrode having the same polarity as charged particles to be filtered {Fig. 2f Ref. Cathode} is connected to the exchange membrane {¶ 41 and Fig. 4b}.
With respect to claim 4, Han teaches an ion depletion region {Fig. 4b, space between Ref. Concentration and the MP-CEM,
PNG
media_image1.png
478
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
},
that is formed upstream of the ion exchange membrane {Fig. 4b} to block the movement of charged particles into the pores of the ion exchange membrane {¶ 21}.
With respect to claim 5, Han teaches the ion depletion region is formed based on ion concentration polarization {¶ 72 and Fig. 4b}.
With respect to claim 6, Han teaches the first electrode including an additional ion exchange membrane {¶ 10 and Fig. 2f, MP-CEM,
PNG
media_image2.png
541
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
},
having a plurality of pores allowing the flow of fluid {¶ 10}.
With respect to claim 7, Han teaches that the ion depletion region causes an electrophoretic force to act on the charged particles {¶ 39}.
With respect to claim 8, Han teaches that the charged particles move in a direction different from a direction in which fluid flows by a drag force {Fig. 1, electrophoretic and drag velocity acting on a particle}.
With respect to claim 9, Han teaches that the ion depletion region includes sub-ion depletion regions {¶ 10} corresponding to a plurality of pores in the ion exchange membrane {¶ 10} and has a cross-sectional area equal to or larger than a predetermined first area in a direction in which fluid flows by including a plurality of sub-ion depletion regions {¶ 10}.
With respect to claim 17, Han teaches the filtration efficiency of the apparatus for filtering charged particles varies depending on at least one of: the flow rate of fluid passing through the filtration apparatus {¶ 42, ‘Q’}, voltage applied to the first electrode and ion exchange membrane {¶ 42, ‘E’}, zeta potential of the charged particles {¶ 42, ‘ζ’}, of the type of charged particles {¶ 44}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20210346844A1) in view of Kwak (US20140374274A1).
Han teaches all of the limitations of claims 1-9 as mentioned above in the prior 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. Han also teaches the ion depletion region has a cross-sectional area equal to or larger than a predetermined second area in a direction in which fluid flows. Han also teaches the electroconvection includes a three-dimensional vortex pair {¶ 40 and Fig. 1f}
Han does not teach a porous layer, made of polyester microfiber, disposed upstream of the ion exchange membrane inside the main channel and designed to filter particles of size equal to or larger than a predetermined first size among particles in fluid. Han does not teach that the porous layer limits electroconvection induced in the ion depletion region to a predetermined level or less. Han does not teach that the electroconvection is induced by electroosmotic instability.
However, Kwak teaches a porous layer {¶ 28}, made of polyester microfiber {¶ 67}, disposed upstream of the ion exchange membrane inside the main channel {¶ 28} and designed to filter particles of a size equal to or larger than a predetermined first size among particles om fluid {¶ 28}. Kwak also teaches that the porous layer limits electroconvection induced in the ion depletion region to a predetermined level or less {¶ 63}. Kwak also teaches the electroconvection is induced by electroosmotic instability {¶ 23 and ¶ 28}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Kwak with the invention of Han because the porous layer that Kwak teaches within the main channel enhances the efficiency to separate / remove ions within the electrokinetic device by minimizing instability of electroconvection within the main chamber {Kwak, ¶ 63}.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20210346844A1) in view of Kwak (US20140374274A1) in further view of Zhang (CN214695980U). *Note all teachings and mapping from Zhang are based on the attached English translation.
The combination of Han and Kwak teach all the limitations of claims 1-14, as mentioned in the prior 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections.
Han and Kwak do not teach that the porous layer has a dorm-shaped cap designed to fix the porous layer and allow the flow of fluid wherein the upper boundary or the porous layer is bent by the dorm-shaped cap so that the ion depletion region has a convex shape.
However, Zhang teaches that the porous layer has a dorm-shaped cap {Pg. 3 ¶ 4} designed to fix the porous layer and allow the flow of fluid wherein the upper boundary or the porous layer is bent by the dorm-shaped cap {Pg. 3 ¶ 4}. When the ion exchange membrane has a dorm-shape the ion depletion region will follow a similar, convex, shape; given the ion exchange membrane is generating an electric filed between it and the cathode/anode of the electrokinetic device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the unified invention of Han and Kwak with Zhang because the shape of the cap taught in Zhang effectively reduces clogging and improves the flow {Zhang, Pg. 3 ¶ 4}.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20210346844A1) in view of Furusaki (WO2020121982A1). *Note all teachings and mapping from Furusaki are based on the attached English translation.
Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above in the prior 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection.
Han does not teach that the fluid entering the electrokinetic apparatus has already been filtered through a reverse osmosis-based apparatus.
However, Furusaki teaches that a reverse osmosis systems and methods of treating liquids can be combined the electrokinetic {“electrodialysis”} filtration {Background, “Therefore … mainstream”}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Han with the teachings of Furusaki because Furusaki states that this combination is already commonly done within the art {Background, “Therefore … mainstream”}.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20210346844A1) in view of Timperman (US20170088443A1).
Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above in the prior 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. Han further teaches that the charged particles are sent to the branch channel by a resultant force of the electrophoretic force of the ion depletion region formed upstream of the ion exchange membrane and a drag force resulting from the flow of fluid {¶ 39 and Fig. 1}.
Han does not teach a branch channel that diverges off the main channel, upstream of the ion exchange membrane, where particles are sent and allowed to be discharged therethrough.
However, Timperman teaches a branch channel {¶ 26} that diverges off the main channel, upstream of the ion exchange membrane {Fig. 1 Ref’s. 20, 50}, where particles are sent and allowed to be discharged therethrough {¶ 25 and ¶ 26}. Timperman is relevant to Han because both of these inventions involve the separation of ions within a fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Han with the branch channel of Timperman because a branch channel allows for the removal of filtered or “waste” ions from an electrokinetic filtering device, without needing to disrupt the flow of unfiltered or “clean” ions that are flowing through the remainder of the main channel {¶ 25}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779