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 of Group II, claims 9-17, in the reply filed on April 9, 2026 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 9, 2026.
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 recites “the other contaminants”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 is understood as “to remove the chloride and [[the]] other contaminants”.
Claims 9-17 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
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.
Claims 9, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20110028610A (hereinafter KR 610; machine generated translation of KR 610 is herein cited as the English language translation) in view of Dugan, H.A., Skaff, N.K., Doubek, J.P., Bartlett, S.L., Burke, S.M., Krivak-Tetley, F.E., Summers, J.C., Hanson, P.C. and Weathers, K.C., 2020. Lakes at risk of chloride contamination. Environmental science & technology, 54(11), pp.6639-6650 (hereinafter Dugan) and US 20110024361 A1 (hereinafter US 361).
Regarding claim 9 and regarding claim 10, KR 610 discloses method of wastewater treatment (see KR 610 title, figure 1; paragraph 0006/1).
KR 610 discloses supplying a stream of wastewater to be treated which contains a chloride salt (see KR 610 figure 1; paragraph 0006/1/page 6) to a reactor tank (see KR 610 raw water tank (1) figure 1; paragraph 0006/1 & 0027) and from the reactor tank to at least one reactor comprising at least one electrode for treating the wastewater to remove the chloride and the other contaminants contained in the wastewater (see KR 610 raw water tank (1) line/conduit, electrolytic cell/electrode &/or membrane current application tank figure 1; paragraph 0006/1 & 0027, 0032-0033).
Additionally, regarding the apparatus limitation, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of KR 610 is substantially identical to the claimed at least one reactor comprising at least one electrode of the present application, and therefore, the structure of KR 610 is presumed inherently capable of treating the wastewater to remove the chloride and the other contaminants contained in the wastewater.
KR 610 discloses that the system and method may be applied to various water systems, such as “industrial water and drinking water, as well as to swimming pool water quality management, drainage from food processing plants other than plums and udon, groundwater, and various other industrial fields” (see KR 610 paragraph 0044). KR 610 does not disclose a chloride concentration between 500 mg/L to 5,000 mg/L
Dugan discloses that there has been a “long-term rise in chloride and salinity in groundwater, streams, and lakes” (see Dugan page 6639 Introduction section, 1st paragraph), that a known risk to lake water is anthropogenic chloride contamination (see Dugan abstract) and that “Salts are also known to mobilize toxic heavy metals from soils to groundwater, which have the potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic food webs and compromise human health” (see Dugan page 6639 Introduction section 1st paragraph). Dugan discloses lake-specific model predictions to assess salt contamination risk (see Dugan abstract, page 6641 Method section, 1st paragraph; page 6643 Results section). Dugan discloses that public data of publicly available land use, lake catchment and morphometry, and climate data was used to determine chloride concentrations and to form the basis for the model predictions (see Dugan pages 6641-6643 Methods section). Dugan discloses observed chloride concentrations vs predictions (see Dugan figure 3 page 6644; figure 4 page 6445; figure 7 page 6647), where the concentration of chloride can range from less than 0.5 mg/L to as high as 2048 mg/L (see Dugan figure 3 page 6644). Dugan discloses that “the extreme example of Diamond Lake, which is a very shallow 20-ha lake in Minneapolis, Minnesota that receives direct runoff from nearby U.S. Interstate-35. The median chloride concentration of the lake is 115 mg L−1, but the range is from 7.5 to 1181 mg L−1” (see Dugan page 6648, continuing paragraph) and thus, “maximums can greatly exceed median chloride concentrations, as shown for Diamond Lake, MN (Figure 7a)” (see Dugan page 6648, 1st full paragraph).
Dugan is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water contaminated with chloride.
Dugan is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention. “[a] reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.” See MPEP 2141.01(a). Dugan is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. treating wastewater containing chloride (see Applicant’s specification, paragraph 0001).), because Dugan is directed towards understanding the concentration of chloride water, such as groundwater, streams, and lakes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to treat water comprising chloride, as disclosed in Dugan, with the method and system, as disclosed in KR 610, because it would assist with the removal of chloride, which is a known contaminant and/or toxin. .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to treat water comprising chloride, as disclosed in Dugan, with the method and system, as disclosed in KR 610, and reasonably expect the resulting method and system to work as the prior art intended, i.e. remove chloride from water containing a high concentration of chloride.
Hence, KR 610 in view of Dugan is deemed to disclose a method of wastewater treatment comprising the steps of supplying a stream of wastewater to be treated which contains a chloride salt with a chloride concentration between 500 mg/L to 5,000 mg/L to a reactor tank and from the reactor tank to at least one reactor comprising at least one electrode for treating the wastewater to remove the chloride and the other contaminants contained in the wastewater.
KR 610 in view of Dugan discloses controlling the current supplied to the reactor(s) for treating the wastewater (see KR 610 paragraphs 0032, 0042), as recited in claim 9 KR 610 in view of Dugan discloses “electrolysis (anodic oxidation) is performed to reduce COD (current density of about 1 to 80 A/d m²)” (see KR 610 paragraph 0032). KR 610 in view of Dugan does not disclose a controller for controlling the current density, as recited in claim 10.
US 361 discloses a method of wastewater treatment (see US abstract and figures 1, 2-13 and paragraphs 0046-0053). US 361 discloses that the “control unit can regulate a pulse width and amplitude of a DC current generated by said variable power supply” (see US 361 paragraph 0204; see also US 361 control system/control unit figures 1, 2-13 and paragraphs 0078, 0104, 0165, 0167, 0172, 0174, 0178, 0180-0181, 0184, 0186, 0191, 0204-0206 as well as paragraphs 0089, 0104, 0108, 0171).
US 361 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. contaminated wastewater treatment system and method; wastewater contaminated with chloride.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KR 610 in view of Duganby incorporating a control unit, as disclosed in US 361, because it would assist with controlling the current being applied to the electrolytic cell of KR 610 in view of Duganand/or by assisting with controlling the current density feature of KR 610 in view of Dugan
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KR 610 in view of Duganby incorporating a control unit, as disclosed in US 361, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. control the power and/or current being applied and/or controlling the current density
Hence, KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361 is deemed to disclose a method of wastewater treatment comprising the steps of a. supplying a stream of wastewater to be treated which contains a chloride salt with a chloride concentration between 500 mg/L to 5,000 mg/L to a reactor tank and from the reactor tank to at least one reactor comprising at least one electrode for treating the wastewater to remove the chloride and the other contaminants contained in the wastewater; b. controlling the current supplied to the reactor(s) for treating the wastewater, as recited in claim 9, and is deemed to disclose the current supplied to the reactor(s) is controlled by controlling the current density, as recited in claim 10.
KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361discloses 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 to the treated wastewater in the reactor tank to lower the aqueous free chlorine level below predetermined level allowed for wastewater to be discarded (see KR 610 injector with a reducing agent (sodium bisulfite) figure 1 and paragraph 0006/page 9, 0033, 0034).
KR 610 discloses that after the treated fluid exits the membrane current application tank, a reducing agent, such as sodium bisulfite is added to the treated fluid, which when flows through the system and back to the raw water tank and then first reaction tank (see KR 610 paragraph 0034). Thus, in KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the reducing agent, such as sodium bisulfite, is added to the treated wastewater in the raw water tank and the first reaction tank. It is noted that the length of time for the “after the reactor(s) stopped treating the wastewater and before the wastewater is discarded from the system” is undefined in the as-originally filed specification and therefore the length of time for between “after the reactor(s) stopped treating the wastewater and before the wastewater is discarded from the system” may be understood as any length of time.
In the alternative, even if KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361 does not disclose “supplying an amount of sodium bisulfite to the treated wastewater in the reactor tank”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361 by incorporating a second or subsequent tank comprising a reducing agent, such as sodium bisulfite, into the system of KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361, wherein the reducing agent may be added to the raw water tank, because it would assist with the reducing of any residual chlorine within the treated water entering the raw water tank and/or assist with reducing impurities with in the newly entering raw water as well as the treated water being recycled through the system and/or assist with reducing any oxidants within the raw water and/or recycled treated water that would corrode the devices of the system, including piping.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361 by incorporating a second or subsequent tank comprising a reducing agent, such as sodium bisulfite, into the system of KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361, wherein the reducing agent may be added to the raw water tank, since it has been held that mere duplication of an element of an apparatus involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. Like the apparatus at issue in In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the fact that a claimed system and method of KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361 has a plurality of injection points of the reducing agent/sodium bisulfite is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. There is no patentable significance of an additional injection points of the reducing agent/sodium bisulfite, which predictable provides one of ordinary skill in the art with additional in reducing reaction of the raw water and recycling treated water, and does not produce any new and/or unexpected results.
There is no patentable significance of an additional probe, which predictable provides one of ordinary skill in the art with additional information regarding the operating system, and does not produce any new and/or unexpected results.
In the alternative, even if KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361 does not disclose “supplying an amount of sodium bisulfite to the treated wastewater in the reactor tank”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361.
The disclosure of US 361 is discussed above. Additionally, US 361 discloses that the stream may be injected with various material, such as sodium bisulfite, ozone, oxygen, air, bicarbonate salts and/or sulfur dioxide, in order to customize treatment of the fluid (see US 361 abstract, paragraphs 0002, 0047, 0051-0052, 0064, 0102, 0173, 0177, 0183) prior to entering at least one reactor comprising at least one electrode for treating the wastewater to remove the chloride and the other contaminants contained in the wastewater (see US 361 conduits/ducts/lines connecting reservoir/tank/pond to electrochemical cell with electrochemical zones comprising an anode and cathode figures 1, 1b, 2-13 and paragraphs 0100-0101, 0157-0162, 0164-0165, 0174, 0200, 0203).
As established above, US 361 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to inject precursor compounds, such as sodium bisulfite, as disclosed in US 361, into the raw water tank of KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361, which contains both raw water and recycling treated water, because it would assist with generating a customized water to be treated by the at least one reactor (see US 361 paragraph 0002) and/or because it would assist with creating “a customized reducing environment for effective treatment of specific contaminants that are not destroyed in an oxidation process such as precipitation of heavy metals with the addition of sodium bisulfide” (see US 361 paragraph 0048) and/or because it would assist with achieving the “reduced by directly anodic oxidizing the water to be treated by electrolysis, and the residual chlorine generated in the water to be treated by anodic oxidation can be reduced on the cathode side of the gap membrane current application tank” feature of KR 610 (see KR 610 page 8/paragraph 0006(2)).
Additionally, rearranging the location of the injection point of the reducing agent, such as sodium bisulfite, to be into the reactor tank would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and said artisan would have a reasonable expectation that the resulting apparatus would work as intended by KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361, i.e. injecting a substance.
KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361discloses 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) (see KR 610 feedback path, sensor (S), figure 1; paragraph 0034).
It is understood that “a period of time” may be any period of time. Herein, there must necessarily be a period of time within the prior art. . “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
It is understood that “determined experimentally” may be understood as being by any method that performs an experiment, such as by a bench laboratory work or by a sensor, which performs a miniature, real-time experiment to achieve a sensor output.
Even if KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361does not disclose a sensor limitation in the system and method, US 361 discloses that the control unit uses sensor inputs in order to control various parameters of the system (see US 361 paragraphs 0049, 0063, 0072).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361to incorporate several sensors, to monitor the condition of the wastewater prior to, during and/or after treatment, as well as the control system/unit, as disclosed in US 361, because it would assist with providing information the system and/or water, prior to, during and/or after treatment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361to incorporate the sensors, to monitor the condition of the wastewater prior to, during and/or after treatment, as well as the control system/unit, as disclosed in US 361, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. provide information about the system.
KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361discloses 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 (see KR 610 paragraph 0032; see US 361 figures 1, 2-13 and paragraphs 0078, 0104, 0165, 0167, 0172, 0174, 0178, 0180-0181, 0184, 0186, 0191, 0204-0206).
KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361does not disclose the addition of an amount of sodium bisulfite to generate 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.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361by adding a sufficient amount of sodium bisulfite because it will assist with reducing the residual chlorine/chloride concentration (see KR 610 paragraphs 0033-0034).
It is noted that the addition of an amount of sodium bisulfite in KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361, as established above, will necessarily achieve a pH of the treated wastewater in the reactor tank of less than or equal to 4 for in-situ cleaning of the electrodes.
It is noted that the sodium bisulfite is added as water exits membrane current application tank, and the water then travels through the system to the feedback loop and is deposited in the raw water tank. Hence, the sodium bisulfite is supplied to the reactor tank.
Regarding claim 13, KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361discloses 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 (see rejection of claims 9 and 10).
Even if KR 610 in view of MWO, US 361 and Wei does not disclose controlling the current density, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine, modify and/or optimize the current density, as discloses in KR 610 and/or US 361, for the at least one reactor comprising at least one electrode of KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361, because optimizing the current density will impact the optimization of the reaction/of the reactor.
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed current density cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed current density of K KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the current density and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361discloses the current density is controlled based on the amount of aqueous free chlorine detected during the system operation in the reactor tank 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 (see rejection of claims 9 and 10)
Even if KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361does not disclose control the amount of aqueous free chlorine detected by controlling the current density, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the amount of aqueous free chlorine detected by controlling the current density in the method and system of KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361because it would assist with controlling the rate of the reaction and/or assist with controlling the concentration of aqueous free chlorine generated.
Regarding claim 17, KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 9. Further, KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361discloses the chloride salt is sodium chloride (see rejection of claim 9; see KR 610 paragraph 0006/1 pages 6 & 7 (Further, US 361 is evidence that water comprises sodium chloride (see US 361 paragraph 0099).).
Claims 11, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wei, C., Sun, S., Mandler, D., Wang, X., Qiao, S.Z. and Xu, Z.J., 2019. Approaches for measuring the surface areas of metal oxide electrocatalysts for determining their intrinsic electrocatalytic activity. Chemical Society Reviews, 48(9), pp.2518-2534 (hereinafter Wei).
Regarding claim 11, KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, as established above, KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361 discloses 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 (see rejection of claim 9).
KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361 does not disclose the size of the electrode active area is controlled to a value determined experimentally.
Wei discloses a review of the various parameters of an electrochemical cell that would affect the electrocatalyst (see Wei abstract). Wei discloses “the precise assessment of intrinsic activity highly depends on the reliable measurement of catalyst surface area, which calls for the knowledge of experimental approaches for determining the surface areas of metal oxide electrocatalysts. This tutorial review aims to summarize and analyze the approaches for measuring the surface areas of metal oxide electrocatalysts for evaluating and comparing their intrinsic electrocatalytic activities. … [and provides] general guidelines for experimentally measuring the electrochemically active surface area (ECSA)” (see Wei abstract; see also Wei Introduction section; sections 2-3). Wei discloses “the accurate measurement of catalyst surface area governs the reliable assessment of specific activity, and such a vital role of catalyst surface area necessitates sound experimental approaches for determining the surface areas of catalysts” (see Wei Introduction section). Wei discloses “the best way to extract specific activity is using the surface area measured by an electrochemical method, also known as electrochemically active surface area (ECSA) measurement” (see Wei Introduction section; see also Wei sections 4-6 & Table 1).
Wei is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. electrochemical cell.
Wei is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention. “[a] reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.” See MPEP 2141.01(a). Wei is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. method and a system for wastewater treatment with in-situ cleaning of electrodes of the electrochemical reactor (see Applicant’s specification, paragraphs 0001, 0005-0011).), because Wei discloses an important parameter, electrochemically active surface area (ECSA), of an electrochemical cell.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine, modify and/or optimize the electrochemically active surface area (ECSA), as discloses in Wei, for the at least one reactor comprising at least one electrode of KR 610 in view of Dugan and US 361, because optimizing the ECSA will impact the optimization of the reaction/of the reactor.
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed electrode active area cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed electrode active area of KR 610 in view of Dugan, US 361and Wei. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the electrode active area and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, KR 610 in view of Dugan, US 361and Wei discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, as established above, KR 610 in view of Dugan, US 361and Wei discloses the size of the electrode active area is controlled based on the amount of aqueous free chlorine detected during the system operation in the reactor tank such that the total amount of aqueous free chlorine generated during 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 (see rejection of claim 11).
Even if KR 610 in view of Dugan, US 361and Wei does not disclose control the amount of aqueous free chlorine detected by controlling the size of the electrode active area, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the amount of aqueous free chlorine detected by controlling the size of the electrode active area in the method and system of KR 610 in view of Dugan, US 361and Wei because it would assist with controlling the rate of the reaction and/or assist with controlling the concentration of aqueous free chlorine generated.
Regarding claim 15, KR 610 in view of Dugan, US 361and Wei discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, as established above, KR 610 in view of Dugan, US 361and Wei discloses both the size of the electrode active area and the current density are 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 (see rejection of claims 11 and 13).
Regarding claim 16, KR 610 in view of Dugan, US 361and Wei discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, as established above, KR 610 in view of Dugan, US 361and Wei discloses both the size of the electrode active area and the current density are controlled based on the detected amount of aqueous free chlorine generated until the end of the wastewater treatment 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 (see rejection of claims 12 and 14).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
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
Prosecution Insights