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 .
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 4, 11-13 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 4, “substantially the same as the pH of the water stream” is vague and ambiguous as to scope of “substantially the same” which concerns subjective and arbitrary determinations.
In claim 11, “the streams” lacks clear antecedent basis, such term is ambiguous as to whether it refers to all 5 of the various streams introduced in claim 1, or may reference any plurality of two or more of such streams; and
the wording of “to at least one other water treatment process” is inconsistent with recitation in claim 1 of the method introduced in claim 1, it is unclear whether “process” and “method” are synonymous.
In claim 12, the claim is ambiguous as to whether each of the recited at least one other water treatment process includes one of the selections of electrocoagulation, ion exchange resin (treatment), activated carbon (treatment) or electrofenton-based treatment, or if instead, the at least one other process includes one such selections; and
ion exchange resin, activated carbon, as now worded concern materials rather than types of treatment (it is suggested that “treatment” be inserted following each of “ion exchange resin” and “activated carbon”.
In claim 13, “the at least one other water treatment process” lacks antecedent basis (it is suggested that dependency of claim 13 be changed from claim 10 to claim 11).
In independent claim 15, the absence of “and” between “mixing means;” and “flow dividing means” makes the claim ambiguous as to whether or not such “flow dividing means” is the last in a series of structural units which the apparatus is comprising; and,
the claim is unclear as to whether “said second electrochemical treatment zone being configured to receive the finishing stream” is reciting structure for fluidly communicating the second electrochemical treatment zone and the flow dividing means, or instead is merely reciting such treatment zone including at least one inlet which is operable for receiving a stream.
In claim 16, the meaning and scope of “process loop” and “finishing spur” are ambiguous as to whether or not “process loop” is reciting the apparatus components as being in fluid communication to enable recirculation or the components having conduits joining the respective components, and whether “finishing spur” is reciting at least a portion of the flow dividing means and second electrochemical zone being in fluid communication to enable circulation between the components, or there being at least one conduit joining the respective components.
In claim 17, it is unclear whether “comprise one or more current feeders” corresponds to each of the zones having one or more current feeders, or to the two zones together have one or more current feeders; and
whether “operate at a selected current” refers to each of the zones having a respective, selected current or to each of the zones having the same selected current.
In claim 18, it is unclear whether the claim is reciting each of the zones being in the form of a respective, separate electrochemical cell, or instead refers to the two zones together being in the form of an electrochemical cell.
In claim 19, “preferably a semi-permeable membrane” is indefinite as to whether or not such membrane is positively recited; and there is no period at the end of the claim making it unclear whether claim 19 includes may include additional apparatus components or features.
In claim 21, it is unclear whether or not “a stream received from the first treatment zone” refers to the same or a different stream than the recited finishing stream recited in claim 15.
In claim 22, it is unclear whether “comprise a conductive particulate material” corresponds to each of the zones comprising such material, or to the two zones together comprising such material.
In claim 23, “the inlet” lacks antecedent basis (does such inlet refer to an inlet of the first treatment zone?).
In claim 24, the claim is ambiguous as to whether each of the recited at least one other water treatment process includes one of the selections of electrocoagulation, ion exchange resin (treatment), activated carbon (treatment) or electrofenton-based treatment, or if instead, the at least one other process includes one such selections; and
ion exchange resin, activated carbon, as now worded concern materials rather than types of treatment (it is suggested that “treatment” be inserted following each of “ion exchange resin” and “activated carbon”.
In claim 25, it is unclear what is meant by “use of the apparatus” (providing of flow through the recited means and electrochemical unit of claim 15?); and unclear whether “contaminated water” further defines the “water” introduced in claim 15.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations are “a mixing means for mixing the water stream and a recycle stream”, and “flow dividing means in fluid communication with the first electrochemical treatment zone for dividing a water stream leaving the first electrochemical treatment zone into the recycling stream and a finishing stream” in claim 15. Such limitations are, respectively interpreted: for the “mixing means” in view of the Specification at paragraphs [0060-0062] as one or more of a mixing vessel, moving means, or comprise inline mixers, static mixers, vortices, stirrers, shakers or other structurally and functionally equivalent mixing devices; and any structure or structures operable for dividing a water stream into the recycling stream and a finishing stream; and
for the for the “mixing means” in view of the Specification at paragraphs [0058, 0059 and 0231] as including one or more of pumps, valves, resistors, tanks and other ancillary apparatus for effecting the stream dividing .
Claim 14 has been interpreted as only requiring the added limitation of “wherein the water stream includes phosphate”, since the remainder of the claim: “optionally wherein the method includes recovering the phosphate via precipitation” is not a required, positively recited limitation.
Claim 19 has been interpreted as only requiring the added limitation of “wherein the first and second electrochemical zones are separated by a separator”, since the remainder of the claim: “preferably a semi-permeable membrane” is not a required, positively recited limitation.
Claim 22 has been interpreted as only requiring the added limitation of “wherein the first and/or the second treatment zones comprise a conductive particulate material”, since the remainder of the claim: “optionally wherein the conductive particulate material comprises intercalated graphite” is not a required, positively recited limitation.
Claim 24 has been interpreted as only requiring the added limitation of “further comprising at least one other water treatment unit”, since the remainder of the claim: “optionally selected from an ion exchange resin, an electrocoagulation unit, or an electro-Fenton unit, optionally wherein the apparatus is configured to provide at least a portion of the stream leaving the first electrochemical treatment zone to the at least one other water treatment unit” are not required, positively recited limitations.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-18, 20, 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Egner et al PGPUBS Document US 2019/0177189 (Egner).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent apparatus claim 15, Egner discloses: An apparatus for treating a water stream comprising contaminants (14 or 24 (figures 1, 2 and 4) comprising contaminants and [0001-0002 re treating wastewater having nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous contaminants]), the apparatus comprising:
a mixing means for mixing the water stream and a recycle stream (recirculation of water stream 14 and recycle stream 22 illustrated in figures 1-4 shown by intersecting flow lines, and effected by operation of pumps 15 and 23 and resulting flow rates Qd and Qr in lines for handling the streams shown in figures 1-4 and described in [0027, 0046 and 0048] as a mixing ratio of adjustable flow speeds defined by ratio of recirculation of recycle stream relative to water stream Qr/Qd to form a combined stream 16 [0008-0009, 0044-0046 ], also see [0025 re one or more pumps serving as mixing devices]);
an electrochemical treatment unit comprising first and second treatment zones, said first treatment zone being in fluid communication with the mixing means (upstream treatment zone 40 and downstream treatment zone 40, each having an electrochemical treatment unit 12 or Reaktor 1-1 (figures 1-4), the embodiment of figure 4 specifically illustrating the two treatment units being in series or cascading relationship and specifically described at [0054], each treatment unit having electrochemical reactors 12 or reaktors 1-1 as further described at [0001, 0008 and 0045-0047 re treatment in an electrolytic reactor utilizing electrodes of differing polarity including a sacrificial anode and application of a current or creation of a galvanic manner]);
flow dividing means in fluid communication with the first electrochemical treatment zone for dividing a water stream leaving the first electrochemical treatment zone into the recycle stream and a finishing stream (figures 1-4 and [0054] directed to “discharge stream 24” in a second ratio as a result of operation of pumps in respective flow lines for streams 22 and 24, in fluid communication with separate outlets from storage tank or buffer reservoir 18 as shown in the figures and described at [0051-0053]);
said second electrochemical treatment zone being configured to receive the finishing stream (figure 4 and [0054] illustrating and describing connection between buffer or storage tank 18 and 2nd zone 40).
Egner further discloses:
for claim 16, wherein the apparatus is arranged to form:
a process loop comprising the mixing means, the first electrochemical treatment zone and the flow dividing means (see figures 1-3, illustrating mixing means where recirculation line 22 and wastewater feed line 14 intersect, each line having corresponding pumps, 1st electrochemical treatment zone 40/12 and buffer or storage tank or reservoir flow dividing means 18, all described at [0051-0054]) ; and
a finishing spur comprising the flow dividing means and the second electrochemical treatment zone (illustrated in figures 1 and 4 and described at [0053-0054]);
for claim 17, wherein the first and second electrochemical treatment zones comprise one or more current feeders operable to operate at a selected current [0044 re “application of a current”];
for claim 18, wherein the first and second electrochemical zones are in the form of an electrochemical cell [0001, 0005 and 0009-0010 re providing of one or more reactors having anode and cathode, operable for effecting oxidation (galvanic) and reduction reactions and inherently capable of containing an electrolyte];
for claim 20, wherein the mixing means is operable to mix the water stream and the recycle stream in a first ratio (achieved as a result of recirculation flow rates and operation of pumps 15 and 23 and effected flow rates Qd and Qr in lines for handling the streams shown in figures 1-4 and described in [0027, 0046 and 0048] as a ratio of adjustable flow speeds defined by ratio of recirculation of recycle stream relative to water stream Qr/Qd ) to form a combined stream 16 [0008-0009, 0044-0046 ], also see [0025 re one or more pumps serving as mixing devices]);
for claim 21, wherein the flow dividing means is operable to divide a stream received from the first treatment zone in a second ratio [0026 and 0027, and 0046-0048 regarding series -arranged electrochemical reactors coupled by stream flows at controlled flow ratios] ;
for claim 23, the apparatus further comprising one or more pH monitors to monitor the pH of the fluid in at least one of the inlet, the mixing means, the first treatment zone, the flow dividing means, the second electrochemical treatment, and an outlet from the second treatment zone [0047 re pH probes 26 and 28];
for claim 24, the apparatus further comprising at least one other water treatment unit (figure 6 and [0055-0057 regarding the installation being in a wastewater plant where the recirculated or the water stream is provided to processes of biological treatment in stage 100 or separation 102 or anaerobic processing 103], or [0046 re an outlet or finishing stream being provided to a crystal separator 20]); and,
for claim 25, use of the apparatus to treat contaminated water (treatment of agricultural or industrial wastewater, containing nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous-containing contaminants [0002 and 0058]).
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.
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 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egner et al PGPUBS Document US 2019/0177189 (Egner) in view of Miyashita et al patent 5,997,717.
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Egner discloses: a method for treating a water stream (14 or 24 (figures 1, 2 and 4) comprising contaminants and [0001-0002 re treating wastewater having nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous contaminants]), the method comprising the steps of:
a) mixing the water stream 14 and a recycle stream 22 in a first ratio (achieved as a result of recirculation flow rates and operation of pumps 15 and 23 and effected flow rates Qd and Qr in lines for handling the streams shown in figures 1-4 and described in [0027, 0046 and 0048] as a ratio of adjustable flow speeds defined by ratio of recirculation of recycle stream relative to water stream Qr/Qd to form a combined stream 16 [0008-0009, 0044-0046 ], also see [0025 re one or more pumps serving as mixing devices]);
b) electrochemically treating the combined stream in a first treatment zone of an electrochemical treatment unit 12 or Reaktor 1-1 (figures 1-4) having a first polarity to form a treated combined stream and described at [0001, 0008 and 0045-0047 re treatment in an electrolytic reactor utilizing electrodes of differing polarity including a sacrificial anode and application of a current or creation of a galvanic manner]); and
c) dividing the treated combined stream into the recycle stream 22 and a finishing stream (“discharge stream 24” in a second ratio as a result of operation of pumps in respective flow lines for streams 22 and 24 illustrated in figures 1-4 and described at [0054]); and,
d) passing the finishing stream to a second treatment zone (downstream treatment zone 40, comprising a 2nd of a series of a bank of electrolytic reactors receiving pumped flow from a 1st treatment zone 40 of a series of a bank of such electrolytic reactors) as also described at [0016, 0026, 0053 and 0054 re treatment zones in series, or forming a cascaded structure].
Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom, differ from Egner by requiring such second treatment zone as having the opposite polarity to the first treatment zone to form an output stream .
Egner does disclose each of the treatment zone reactors of each treatment zone comprising two electrodes of opposing polarity within each reactor [0001 and 0032]. Egner is directed to treatment of agricultural or industrial wastewater, containing nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous-containing contaminants [0002 and 0058].
Miyashita also teaches electrolytically or electrochemically treating a water stream, optionally prepared for agricultural uses such as sterilization of soil, crops and plants (column 1, lines 7-12 and column 2, lines 9-29 regarding such uses and regarding water treated as containing natural electrolytes such as potassium ions). The electrolysis of Miyashita concerns by passing treated water from a 1st electrochemical treatment zone to a downstream 2nd electrochemical treatment of opposite polarity (column 1, line 53-column 2, line 8, with such polarities also optionally being reversable (column 2, lines 9-20).
Miyashita teaches such differing polarities advantageously resulting in water having a high oxidizing ability and being of easily controlled pH (column 4, lines 54-65), and also when the option of reversing electrode polarities is being utilized, resulting in self-cleaning of the electrodes of the electrolytic reactor and reduction in the amount of scale produced, hence enabling more continuous production (column 6, line 20-column 7, line 6).
Egner also teaches objectives of preventing deposits or scaling of the electrolytic reactors, such as caused by sedimentation around the electrodes [0006, 0015 and 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the electrochemical water treatment art, to have modified the Egner apparatus, by providing a 2nd electrochemical treatment of opposite polarity, as the 2nd electrochemical treatment of opposite polarity, as Miyashita, in order to reduce sedimentation deposits or scaling at the electrodes, thus enable more continuous electrolytic or electrochemical processing of the water through the reactors .
Creation of such treatment zones of opposite polarity could have been readily achieved by reversing of polarity of the electrodes of each of the electrolytic reactor cells of the treatment zones arranged in series.
For claim 2, Egner discloses wherein at least an inlet or outlet portion of the first treatment zone is anodic ([0001, 0008 and 0032 regarding electrodes of opposing polarity] and [0044 re reactor 12 having a sacrificial anode]).
For claim 3, Egner discloses wherein electrochemically treating the combined stream includes oxidizing at least a portion of the contaminants and produces protons [0044 re the reactor 12 having an anode, thus inherently resulting in oxidizing of contents of water passing therethrough, and inherently producing protons].
For claim 4, Egner discloses wherein the first ratio and the second ratio are selected such that the pH of the output stream is substantially the same as the pH of the water stream ([0004 re wastewater or water stream having an initial pH value of between 5 and 7, and [0009, 0024 and 0026 re pH of output streams being optionally raised, “preferably to at least 8, i.e. optionally, such pH being between 7 and 8], or substantially the same as the water stream, and controlled by control of ratio of recycle to flow-through streams to the inlet and from the outlet of the electrolytic reactors]).
Such pH values are deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to adapt the size of the sleeve of the apparatus and accompanying container to a particular application. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have thus been obvious to the skilled artisan to have controlled the pH of the output stream of Ebner, to be optionally substantially the same as the water or wastewater stream, so as to optimize flow through the system, relative to achieved treatment of the water or wastewater
For claim 5, Egner discloses wherein the first ratio and/or the second ratio is in the range of from 100:1 to 1:100 [0027 and 0029 re such ratios being >= to 1 or >= to 5].
For claim 6, Egner discloses wherein a current is passed through the combined stream to effect the electrochemical treatment [0044 re application of a current].
For claim 8, Egner discloses the method as further comprising the step of adding acid to the water stream and/or further comprising the step of adding base to the output stream [0004 and 0047 regarding optional omitting of supplementary addition of alkali or “base”, or reduced amount of alkali or base being added, i.e. addition of alkali or base being less preferred, but optionally present].
For claim 9, Egner discloses the step of adjusting the first ratio and/or second ratio to maintain the pH of at least one of the combined stream, treated combined stream, recycle stream, finishing stream, and the output stream [0047 and 0048 re adjustment of flow speeds responsive to obtaining of measurement of pH value].
For claim 10, Miyashita further suggests wherein the method further comprises providing sodium chloride to a cathodic one of the treatment zones to produce a sodium hypochlorite solution (column 2, lines 25-45 re addition of sodium chloride as an electrolyte and benefit of such addition resulting in improved electrolyzing).
It would have thus been further obvious to also modify the Egner method by such providing of sodium chloride, as taught by Miyashita, so as to improve electrolyzing achieved in the reactors.
For claim 11, Egner discloses wherein the method further includes providing at least one of the streams to at least one other water treatment process (figure 6 and [0055-0057 regarding the installation being in a wastewater plant where the recirculated or the water stream is provided to processes of biological treatment in stage 100 or separation 102 or anaerobic processing 103], or [0046 re an outlet or finishing stream being provided to a crystal separator 20]).
For claim 13, Miyashita further discloses or suggests wherein the at least one other water treatment process is provided after step (b) (figure 6 and [0055-0057 regarding the installation being in a wastewater plant where the recirculated or the water stream is provided to processes of biological treatment in stage 100 or separation 102 or anaerobic processing 103]) .
For claim 14, wherein the water stream includes phosphate [0001 re “phosphate-containing liquids”].
For claim 19, Egner discloses all the limitations of claim 15 from which claim 19 depends (see rejection of independent claim 15 in the above 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection.
Claim 19 differs by requiring wherein the first and second electrochemical zones are separated by a separator.
For claim 19, Miyashita further teaches wherein first and second electrochemical zones are separated by a separator (column 8, lines 1-30 regarding anodic and cathodic zones of an electrolytic cell 1 being separated by a separator in the form of an ion exchange membrane 7 or 12). Miyashita teaches such construction as enabling separate connection of the electrodes to electric power sources to enable predetermined voltages to be applied.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art of electrochemically treating water or wastewater to modify the Egner method to include providing such separator, would have been obvious in order to enable such separate connection of anode and cathode to electric power sources.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egner et al PGPUBS Document US 2019/0177189 (Egner) in view of Miyashita et al patent 5,997,717, as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14 and 19, and additionally in view of Boukari PGPUBS Document US 2017/0233266.
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For claim 7, Egner suggests wherein the first treatment zone and the second treatment zone may be comprised in the same plant or installation (Abstract and [0044] and figure 4 concerning plural reactors 12 and flow streams into and out of the reactor inlets and outlets being encompassed in an installation 10 or plant, taken as a whole.
However, claim 7 further differs from Egner in view of Miyashita by requiring that the first treatment zone and the second treatment zone are comprised in the same electrochemical cell.
Boukari teaches there being two treatment electrochemical zones for treating water [0001 re water treatment including by oxidation, and figures 1-4 and [0028], re plural electrochemical zones, each having dipoles (Abstract, figures 1, 3 and 4, and [0028 and 0155-0164]. Such electrochemical zones are arranged in the same enclosure, or “cell” 300, and also are created to form an at least quadripolar electrolysis system for creating electrical and chemical interactions [0157]; such interactions enabling a much greater electrolytic production [0164-0165].
Hence it would have been additionally obvious to have modified the Egner method, by combining the two electrochemical treatment zones in the same enclosure or cell, as taught by Boukari, in order to enable a much greater electrical and chemical electrolytic production.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egner et al PGPUBS Document US 2019/0177189 (Egner) in view of Miyashita et al patent 5,997,717, as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14 and 19, and additionally in view of Poirier et al PGPUBS Document US 2017/0233266 (Poirier).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 12, dependent on claim 11, further differs from Egner as modified by Miyashita by requiring wherein the at least one other water treatment process includes electrocoagulation, ion exchange resin, activated carbon, or electrofenton-based treatment.
Poirier teaches wastewater treatment, for wastewater contaminated with a plurality of contaminants including pathogens and organic and inorganic material [0002-0003], in which electrolytic oxidation is combined with a process step of electrocoagulation combined with electro-oxidation of a combined wastewater, water stream and recirculated stream (figures 1 and 8 and described in the Abstract and in [0014 and 0018 re “electro-coagulation and electro-oxidation to advantageously remove organic and metal oxide contaminants from the wastewater] and [0033 and 0049 re electrolytic oxidation]).
It would have been further obvious to have combined the electrolytic treatment provided in the process of Egner as modified by Miyashita, in order to remove a plurality of other diverse contaminants present in wastewater, including organic and metal oxide contaminants.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egner et al PGPUBS Document US 2019/0177189 (Egner) in view of Eccleston et al PGPUBS Document US 2009/0321361 (Eccleston).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 22 differs from Egner by requiring wherein the first and/or the second treatment zones comprise a conductive particulate material, optionally wherein the conductive particulate material comprises intercalated graphite.
Eccleston teaches an absorbent, conductive particulate material, comprising intercalated graphite, for treating contaminated fluid, which may be located between an anode and a cathode of an electrochemical cell or reactor (see Abstract and [0004] re treating contaminated fluid, and [0012 re utilization of the conductive particulate material for removing contaminants and it’s being highly conductive]; and
[0015 and 0019-0020 re suggesting such conductive particulate material or graphite being locatable between an anode and a cathode, or being pressed against an anode surface, thus suggesting the material use in combination with an electrolytic treatment device].
Eccleston teaches that such material is useful for preferentially adsorbing highly toxic organic compounds such as chlorinated organics and high molecular weight and low solubility compounds [0014].
It would have thus been also obvious to one of skill in the art of electrochemically treating contaminated water, to have modified the Egner apparatus, by providing the conductive particles between the disclosed anode(s) and the cathode(s) of the electrochemical reactor units, as taught by Eccleston, so as to remove highly toxic organic compounds such as chlorinated organics and high molecular weight and low solubility compounds, from the contaminated water.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular interest , Djeiranishvili et al patent 6,296,744 teaches electrochemical treatment of a liquid medium, for removing toxic organic substances, and use of a semi-permeable diaphragm or membrane for separating anodic and cathodic chambers of an electrolytic cell for such electrochemical treatment (column 3, lines 27-59).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
08/05/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights