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 .
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 1-22 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.
As to claim 1, the term “closely” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term closely renders indefinite the spacing of the electrodes.
Further as to claim 1, at line 8, the claim recites the limitation of “closely spaced and interlaced electrodes”. However, the claim already recites the limitation “a plurality of electrode plates” at line 3. Therefore, it is unclear as to if the limitation of line 8 intends to refer back to that of line 3 or to a new and separate limitation. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations.
Further as to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the electrode stacks" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 3, the claim recites the limitations “the fluid inlet fitting” and “the fluid outlet fitting”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
As to claim 5, the term “essentially” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term essentially renders indefinite the configuration of the anode and cathode assemblies.
Further as to claim 5, the claim recites the limitations "the anode assembly” and “the cathode assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 6, the claim includes limitations in parenthesis, it is unclear as to if these limitations are actually required by the claim.
As to claim 7, the claim recites the limitation "the water/wastewater network to be treated". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 8, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further as to claim 8, the claim recites the limitation of “electrode assembly”. However, claim 1, upon which claim 8 is dependent, already recites the limitation “an electrode assembly”. Therefore, it is unclear as to if the limitation of claim 8 intends to refer back to that of claim 1 or to a new and separate limitation. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations.
As to claim 9, the claim includes limitations in parenthesis, it is unclear as to if these limitations are actually required by the claim.
As to claim 10, the term “suitable” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term suitable renders indefinite the electrode coating.
Further as to claim 10, the phrases "typically" and “particularly” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 15, the claim recites the limitation of “more uniform”. However, it is unclear as to what this is in comparison to. Furthermore, the term “more” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term more renders indefinite the tension.
As to claim 16, the claim recites the limitation "the flange fitting". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further as to claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “stacks of electrode”; however, it is unclear as to how/if these stacks of electrodes intend to interrelate to the “electrode assembly” of claim 1 upon which claim 16 is dependent.
As to claim 19, the claim recites the limitation "the teeth". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 20, the claim recites the limitations “the current collectors” and "the flange fitting". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim..
As to claim 21, the claim recites the limitation of “an electrode holder structure”. However, claim 1, upon which claim 21 is dependent, already recites the limitation “an electrode holder structure”. Therefore, it is unclear as to if the limitation of claim 21 intends to refer back to that of claim 1 or to a new and separate limitation. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations.
As to claim 22, the claim recites the limitations “the body of the flanged fitting” and "the flange fitting". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-8, 12-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2004/0026335 A1 to Fields (Fields).
As to claim 1, Fields teaches an electrochemical reactor for the inline treatment of water comprising an electrode assembly within a cell stack containment housing (409/607), the electrode assembly including a plurality of closely placed and interlaced electrode plates (512-516 and 521-526), enclosed within an electrode holder structure comprising two circular spacers (501 and 502) and lateral spacers (the outermost electrodes (511 and 517)) inserted into the central openings of the circular spacers (501 and 502) the lateral spacers provided in slots to engage with the circular spacers, each having a central opening having a plurality of slots for receiving and spacing apart the plurality of electrode plates, the two circular spacers having a diameter just less that an internal diameter of the cell stack containment housing (409/607) to force the water to be treated to pass inside the cell stack (Paragraphs 0039, 0040 and 0042; Figures 4-7).
As to claim 2, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fields further teaches that the reactor comprises flanges fixed with bolts, and thus a reactor that would be able to withstand a permanent hydrostatic pressure of 3.5 MPa when tested at ambient temperature (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 3, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fields further teaches that the electrode assembly represents both a passage for the water to be treated and an electrolysis chamber having a cross section larger than a fluid inlet fitting and fluid outlet fitting of the reactor (Figure 4).
As to claim 4, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus of Fields is capable of generating any number of products based upon the operating conditions and feed (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 5, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fields further teaches that the electrode assembly is divided into an anode assembly and a cathode assembly with essentially identical mirror image mechanical and electrical configurations (Paragraph 0042; Figure 7).
As to claim 6, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. While a functional recitation, Fields specifically teaches that the reactor is used for drinking water (Paragraph 0006).
As to claim 7, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fields further teaches that the water treatment system is connected in line with the water to be treated (Paragraph 0016).
As to claim 8, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The metal parts of the reactor of Fields, including the electrodes, are made of a metal.
As to claim 12, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fields further teaches that the normal operating polarity is electrically reversed in order to provide cleaning of the electrode assembly (Paragraph 0042).
As to claim 13, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 12. The apparatus of Fields is capable of performing the polarity reversal at any number of time intervals according to the characteristics of the fluid to be treated and the current fed to the reactor (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 14, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fields further teaches that the reactor is equipped with metal clamping rods (601/611) fixed to flanged fittings (604/614) (Paragraph 0040; Figure 6).
As to claim 15, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fields further teaches that the reactor is equipped with at least a pair of metal supports (403) allowing the reactor to be laid and fixed to the ground and allowing a “more uniform” distribution of tensions (Paragraph 0039; Figure 4).
As to claim 16, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fields further teaches that the reactor is equipped with a pair of metal current collectors (701/702) mounted through a flange fitting for connection of the electrode to a direct current power supply (Paragraphs 0040 and 0042; Figures 6 and 7).
As to claim 21, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The circular spacers of the electrode holder of Fields would prevent internal short circuit from rotation of the electrodes (Figure 5).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 2015/0203376 A1 to Heng et al. (Heng).
As to claim 9, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 8. However, Fields teaches examples of the metal material only of iron or aluminum and fails to contemplate titanium. However, Heng also discusses flow through water treatment with electrode plates and teaches that an titanium is an effective material for forming the electrode plates (Paragraph 0020). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize titanium for the metal parts of the apparatus of Fields with the expectation of effectively providing the metal components for water treatment.
As to claim 10, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Fields fail to further teach that the electrode are coated with a catalysts. However, Heng also discusses flow through water treatment with electrode plates and teaches that the electrode can be coated with a catalyst such a platinum, ruthenium or iridium (Paragraph 0020). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the electrodes of Fields with a catalytic coating such as platinum, ruthenium or iridium with the expectation of catalyzing the water treatment as taught by Heng.
As to claim 11, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 10. Fields further teaches that the electrode plates are, for example, 3.175 mm (0.125 inches) (Paragraph 0044).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0353387 A1 to Gilmore et al. (Gilmore).
As to claim 17, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Fields is silent as to the specific spacing between the electrodes. However, Gilmore also discusses electrode plate electrocoagulation reactors and teaches that an effective spacing, depending on the volume of treatment desired, is, for example, 6.35 mm (0.25 inches) (Paragraph 0023; Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to space the electrode plates of Fields at 6.35 mm with the reasonable expectation of effectively forming the apparatus for water treatment as taught by Gilmore.
Claims 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2006/0097878 A1 to Von Broembsen (Von Broembsen).
As to claims 18 and 19, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fields further teaches that the electrodes are formed with connection holes and are bridged and separated with washers with a thickness corresponding with the slots (teeth) of the circular spacers (Figure 7). However, Fields is silent as to the specific material of the washers. However, Von Broembsen also discusses the electrical connection of planar electrodes utilizing washer for water treatment and teaches that the washers should be formed of metal for conducting current (Paragraph 0063). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the washer of Fields as a metal washer to ensure electrical conduction.
As to claim 20, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fields further teaches that the reactor is equipped with a pair of metal current collectors (701/702) mounted through a flange fitting for connection of the electrode to a direct current power supply (Paragraphs 0040 and 0042; Figures 6 and 7). However, Fields fails to specifically teach that the current collectors and the flange are provided with an o-ring in order to prevent fluid leakage. However, Von Broembsen also discusses the electrical connection of planar electrodes utilizing washer for water treatment and teaches that an o-ring should be provided between the connectors and the flange in order to prevent fluid leakage (Paragraph 0063). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the current collectors of Fields with an o-ring between the collector and the flange in order to prevent fluid leakage as taught by Von Broembsen.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0119288 A1 to Kang et al. (Kang).
As to claim 22, Fields teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fields further teaches that an o-ring seal (gasket) is provided between the containment housing and the flange for preventing leaks (Paragraph 0040; Figure 6). However, Fields fails to teach that the seal is located in a recess. However, Kang also discusses electrolytic reactors and teaches that the o-rings should be provided in plurality in recesses (grooves) in order to ensure water tightness (Paragraph 0076). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the seal of Fields with a recess seal provided in plurality in order to ensure water tightness as taught by Kang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights