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 Objection
Claim 9 recites “at least one reactor” and “the reactor(s)”. Applicant is respectfully requested to recite consistent claim language, such as “the at least one reactor”, within the claim set.
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.
Claim 9-17 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 9 is deemed indefinite because the scope of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 9 recites
b. controlling the current supplied to the reactor(s) for treating the wastewater;
c. … supplying an amount of sodium bisulfite to the treated wastewater in the reactor tank to lower the aqueous free chlorine level below predetermined level allowed for wastewater to be discarded, and
d. recirculating the treated wastewater from the reactor tank through the reactors and back to the reactor tank for a period of time determined experimentally to perform the cleaning of the electrodes of the reactor(s),
the current supplied to the reactor(s) for treating the wastewater is controlled such that the total amount of aqueous free chlorine generated until the end of the wastewater treatment requires the addition of an amount of sodium bisulfite determined experimentally to generate a concentration of between 500 mg/L and 5,000 mg/L of hydrochloric acid in the reactor tank and a pH of the treated wastewater in the reactor tank of less than or equal to 4 for in-situ cleaning of the electrodes.
The claimed current supplied, the claimed amount of sodium bisulfite and the total amount of aqueous free chloride limitations cannot be determined since there are too many unknown variables/elements. The claimed current supplied, the claimed amount of sodium bisulfite and the total amount of aqueous free chloride limitations cannot be determined since each of these limitations is based upon another one of these noted limitations. The claimed “current supplied to the reactor(s) for treating the wastewater” must be sufficient or high enough to “requires the addition of an amount of sodium bisulfite” and the amount of sodium bisulfite is based on “generate a concentration of between 500 mg/L and 5,000 mg/L of hydrochloric acid in the reactor tank and a pH of the treated wastewater in the reactor tank of less than or equal to 4”, but the amount of sodium bisulfite is dependent upon the “total amount of aqueous free chlorine generated”, which is dependent upon the claimed “current supplied”. Additionally, the efficiency of the system and/or current supplied for generating “total amount of aqueous free chlorine generated until the end of the wastewater treatment requires the addition of an amount of sodium bisulfite determined experimentally to generate a concentration of between 500 mg/L and 5,000 mg/L of hydrochloric acid in the reactor tank and a pH of the treated wastewater in the reactor tank of less than or equal to 4” is unknown. The claimed current supplied, the claimed amount of sodium bisulfite and the total amount of aqueous free chloride
Claim 9 recites “controlling the current supplied to the reactor(s) for treating the wastewater” and the “current supplied … is controlled such that the total amount of aqueous free chlorine generated until the end of the wastewater treatment requires the addition of an amount of sodium bisulfite determined experimentally to generate a concentration of between 500 mg/L and 5,000 mg/L of hydrochloric acid in the reactor tank and a pH of the treated wastewater in the reactor tank of less than or equal to 4 for in-situ cleaning of the electrodes”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the controlling step is controlling “for treating the wastewater” or “for in-situ cleaning of the electrodes”. Further, if claim 1 is controlling “for in-situ cleaning of the electrodes”, it is unclear if the controlling step is directed towards controlling “the addition of an amount of sodium bisulfite” limitation, the “generate a concentration of between 500 mg/L and 5,000 mg/L of hydrochloric acid in the reactor tank” limitation or “a pH of the treated wastewater in the reactor tank of less than or equal to 4” limitation.
Claim 9 recites “the system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what elements or structural limitations are deemed “the system”. Claim 12 is deemed indefinite for similar reasoning.
Claim 9 recites “at the end of the treatment, after the reactor(s) stopped treating the wastewater and before the wastewater is discarded from the system, supplying an amount of sodium bisulfite”. Claim 9 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the supplying step c is conducted “at the end of the treatment” or “after the reactor(s) stopped treating the wastewater and before the wastewater is discarded from the system”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if “end of the treatment” is the end of the claimed “method of wastewater treatment” or at the end of step b, “controlling the current supplied to the reactor(s) for treating the wastewater”. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 is understood as at the end of step b and is open to either the supplying step c is conducted 1) “at the end of the treatment” or 2) “after the reactor(s) stopped treating the wastewater and before the wastewater is discarded from the system”.
Claim 9 is deemed indefinite because the scope of “to lower the aqueous free chlorine level below predetermined level allowed for wastewater to be discarded” cannot be determined. It is unclear what the standard for “to be discarded” encompasses. The as-originally filed specification does not define a standard. Further, as discussed above, the “amount of sodium bisulfite” cannot be determined since the “level allowed for wastewater to be discarded” cannot be determined.
Claim 9 is deemed indefinite because the “treated wastewater” in step d cannot be the same “treated wastewater” as recited in step c. That is, in step c, sodium bisulfite is added to the “treated wastewater”, and thus in step d, “treated wastewater” cannot exist because it has been altered.
Claim 9 recites step a is supplying wastewater from the claimed “reactor tank” to the claimed “at least one reactor”, step b is controlling the current supplied to the claimed “reactor(s)”, and step c and step d are supplying the treated wastewater in the claimed reactor tank and recirculating from the claimed “reactor tank”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how the claimed treated wastewater is present within the claimed “reactor tank”.
Claim 9 recites “a period of time determined experimentally to perform the cleaning of the electrodes of the reactor(s)” in step d and “the addition of an amount of sodium bisulfite determined experimentally to generate a concentration of …”. Claim 9 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if either or both of the “determined experimentally” limitations are step(s) of the claimed method of wastewater treatment. Claims 11-16 are deemed indefinite for similar reasoning.
Claims 9-17 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
Claim 10 recites “the current supplied to the reactor(s) is controlled by controlling the size of the electrode active area of the reactor(s) and/or the current density”. Claim 10 is deemed indefinite because, as noted above, there are too many variables to determine the quantity of the current supplied to the reactor(s).
Claim 11 recites “the size of the electrode active area is controlled to a value determined experimentally such that the total amount of aqueous free chlorine generated until the end of the wastewater treatment requires the addition of an amount of sodium bisulfite determined experimentally to generate the concentration of between 500 and 5,000 mg/L of hydrochloric acid in the reactor tank and the pH of the treated wastewater in the reactor tank of less than or equal to 4”. Claim 11 is deemed indefinite because the claimed “size of the electrode active area” limitation cannot be determined since there are too many unknown variables/elements. The claimed size of the electrode active area cannot be determined since this limitation is based upon indefinite features (see indefiniteness rejection of claim 9). Claim 12, 15 and 16 are deemed indefinite for similar reasoning.
Claim 13 recites “the current density is controlled to a value determined experimentally such that the total amount of aqueous free chlorine generated until the end of the wastewater treatment requires the addition of an amount of sodium bisulfite determined experimentally to generate the concentration of between 500 and 5,000 mg/L of hydrochloric acid in the reactor tank and the pH of the treated wastewater in the reactor tank of less than or equal to 4”. Claim 13 is deemed indefinite because the claimed “current density” limitation cannot be determined since there are too many unknown variables/elements. The claimed current density cannot be determined since this limitation is based upon indefinite features (see indefiniteness rejection of claim 9). Claim 14-16 are deemed indefinite for similar reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
