22101Notice 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 2-5 and 8-15 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 2, it is unclear as to what structural feature(s), extent of and location, of the flow control device are present to enable the recited “passive spiral flow of water through the reaction chamber”, and it is unclear what is meant by such flow being “passive” (does the term concern an absence of moving or movable device components?).
In claim 3, it is unclear as to what structural feature(s), extent of and location, of the non-conductive rail are present to enable the recited “helical flow of the raw water traveling through the reaction chamber”.
In claim 4, “device maintains space” is incomplete and thus indefinite (space or spacing between what system components?).
In claim 5, “the flow control device is composed of a non-conductive material” as worded as to whether the limitation is open-ended or close-ended (either “consists of” or “comprises” is suggested to clarify).
In claim 8, in the terminology “wherein each electrode post…to the corresponding non-donating electrodes”, “the corresponding non-donating electrodes” lacks antecedent basis and is inconsistent with independent claim 1 which recites “each of the non-donating electrodes including an electrode post” (thus, each single non-donating electrode corresponding to a singular electrode post).
In each of claims 9, 10, 12 and 13, it is unclear whether respective recitations of “the non-donating electrodes” refers to all of or each of such electrodes.
In claim 11, “activating the raw water in a reaction chamber including a flow control device and non-donating electrodes” is grammatically unclear (“activating…by providing…” is suggested); and,
it is unclear how the recited “mixing” of treated and additional raw waters” in itself provides treated water at a second end of the mix vessel.
In claim 15, the meaning and scope of “transforming the mixture to treated water”, since water introduced into the mix vessel already includes “treated water”.
Dependent claims 12-14 depend from claim 11 which is indefinite, so that these claims are also indefinite.
Claim Interpretations
Independent system claim 1, as well as dependent system claims 2-10, recite structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language, or language regarding intended system use including recitations of the system being a “fluid activation” system in the preambles of claims 1-10.
Independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 6 and 7 contain additional such intended use language concerning “line(s)” and “port(s)” being designated “inlet” or “outlet”, respectively, such terms interpreted as merely being ports (i.e. openings in the chamber operable to allow water or other fluid into or out of the chamber) and merely being lines (i.e. pipes, tubing or other conduits operable to allow fluid flow either towards or away from the chamber).
It is noted that neither the manner of operating an apparatus worded as a disclosed device (or “system”), nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
The following claim interpretations are also herein presented to clarify on the record the limitations recited in each of the noted claims:
In independent method claim 11, and dependent claims 13 and 14, the respective clauses concerning “circulating raw water through a flow activation system”, “step of activating the raw water in the reaction chamber”, and “to further activate the mixture” are respectively interpreted as concerning treating water, or a mixture including water, in which electrochemical reactions are breaking down contaminants in the water, in view of discussion of activating water and producing activated water in paragraphs [0010-0011 and 0033] of the instant Specification.
In claim 5, the clause “the flow control device is composed of a non-conductive material” is interpreted as broadly reciting such device as comprised of, or including at least non-conductive material, not excluding the device also containing conductive material.
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 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wiemers et al PGPUBS Document US 2010/0116686 (Weimers).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Wiemers discloses: A fluid activation system (Abstract and [0006] regarding treating water by electrocoagulation) comprising:
an inlet line configured to receive raw water ([0013 re “reactor chamber…an effluent inlet and effluent outlet”] and figures 1 and 2 illustrating lines connecting activation reactor chamber 805 to upstream and downstream points in the treatment of water, the chamber described in [0022, 0036 and 0040-0042]);
a pump fluidly coupled to the inlet line to generate a flow through the inlet line (figure 2 and [0040] re “plurality of pumps”);
a vessel fluidly coupled to the inlet line and including a reaction chamber having a flow control device (figure 2 and [0040 and 0042] re electrocoagulation apparatus 805 and flow control device(s) in the form of a pumps, valves, regulators and pump controls both within and otherwise associated with apparatus vessel 805, configured to control feed water flow),
non-donating electrodes disposed inside the reaction chamber, the non-donating electrodes defining at least one cathode electrode and at least one anode electrode configured to treat the raw water to produce treated water ([0042 re each secondary chamber including an anode, cathode and bipolar electrode 2133, 2135 and 2137] and [0043 and 0058 re electrodes or electrode plates being of non-metallic or non-sacrificial material]), and
each of the non-donating electrodes including an electrode post [0042 each secondary chamber including respective electrodes held in a corner post 2139]);
an outlet line in fluid connection with the vessel ([0013 re “reactor chamber…an effluent inlet and effluent outlet”] and figures 1 and 2 illustrating lines connecting activation reactor chamber 805 to upstream and downstream points in the treatment of water, the chamber described in [0022, 0036 and 0040-0042]) ; and
a power distribution system electrically connected to the electrode posts to power the non-donating electrodes (AC power distribution grid [0032], power distribution circuitry w terminal bars [0054-0056], power connections [0058], power control of voltage and current [0055] and [0056 re power connections to the anode and cathode electrodes, hence posts]).
In Independent system claim 1, the terminology regarding the system being a “fluid activation” system in the preambles of claims 1-10, is interpreted as intended system use.
Independent claim 1, contains additional such intended use language concerning “line(s)” and “port(s)” being designated “inlet” or “outlet”, respectively, such terms interpreted as merely being ports (i.e. openings in the chamber operable to allow water or other fluid into or out of the chamber) and merely being lines (i.e. pipes, tubing or other conduits operable to allow fluid flow either towards or away from the chamber).
It is noted that neither the manner of operating an apparatus worded as a disclosed device (or “system”), nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115.
For claim 6, Wiemers further discloses wherein the reaction chamber includes a first reaction chamber fluidly connected to the inlet line, wherein the fluid activation system further includes a second reaction chamber that is separate from the first reaction chamber and fluidly connected to the outlet line, and a plurality of third reaction chambers that are serially connected between the first and second reaction chambers (figures 1 and 3 and [0042] re 1st , 2nd and 3rd reaction chambers 805, 2203 and 2203/2127 illustrated within electrodes 2129, 2131, 2139, see [0042 re “primary chamber” and “secondary reaction chambers”], as well as sludge chamber 2143 shown in figure 3 and described in [0042]).
For claim 7, Wiemers further discloses wherein the reaction chamber includes a housing 2121, a cover (hood 2117), and a frustoconical lower base disposed at an opposite side of the housing relative to the cover (figure 3 and [0042]), and a port that is fluidly connected to the “inlet” line and disposed adjacent the base and a port fluidly connected to the “outlet” line, and disposed adjacent the cover.
In each of claims 6 and 7 intended end use language concerning “line(s)” and “port(s)” being designated “inlet” or “outlet”, respectively, are interpreted as merely being ports (i.e. openings in the chamber operable to allow water or other fluid into or out of the chamber) and merely being lines (i.e. pipes, tubing or other conduits operable to allow fluid flow either towards or away from the chamber).
It is noted that neither the manner of operating an apparatus worded as a disclosed device (or “system”), nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115.
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemers et al PGPUBS Document US 2010/0116686 (Weimers) in view of Gilmore et al PGPUBS Document US 2011/0308938 (Gilmore) and Brennan patent 2,277,687.
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 2, and claims 3-5 dependent from claim 2, differ from Wiemers by requiring wherein the reaction chamber includes a flow control device is configured to generate a passive spiral flow of water through the reaction chamber.
The clause “flow control device is configured to generate a passive spiral flow” is interpreted as arrangement and location of such device being so as to generate a non-moving, steady path of flow through the device.
Gilmore teaches an electrolytic or electrochemical apparatus and method [0010], which like Wiemers (Abstract and [0006] regarding treating water by electrocoagulation), is directed to treating water by inducing electrocoagulation [0047], in a system having a flow control device in the form of anode and cathode plates which function to generate a reversal of field at successive serial lengths of a flow path to impart increased turbulence and reactivity [0023], as well as “turbulence inducer” flow control devices in the reaction chamber which extend transversely to a face of an electrode and induce turbulence and curved flow, hence a spiral flow [0018].
Brennan teaches an electrolytic condensers, including a reactor chamber 10, having an electrode 19 in the form of a spiral, helical shape in the form of a corkscrew , thus also generating a passive spiral flow of water through the reaction chamber (figure 1 and col 2, ln 39-50).
Brennan teaches that such form of electrode, provides for an increased contact of the fluid being treated with all of the material of the electrode, thus more completely treating the fluid (col 2, ln 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the electrocoagulation art to have augmented the Wiemers system, by configuring at least some of the electrodes to be in a spiral or corkscrew shape as taught by Brennan, and also to have provided a flow control device in the form a spacer alongside such electrode(s), as cumulatively taught by Gilmore and Brennan to generate a passive spiral flow of water through the reaction chamber, in order to impart increased turbulence and reactivity in the flow and , provides for an increased contact of the fluid being treated with all of the material of the electrode.
Claim 3, dependent on claim 2, further differs by requiring wherein the flow control device includes a non-conductive rail that is circumvoluted between the at least one anode electrode and the at least one cathode electrode in a corkscrew shape, thereby producing a helical flow of the raw water traveling through the reaction chamber.
Gilmore teaches such flow control device in the form of turbulence inducers, consisting of non-conductive elements which are attached to the face of electrodes and between groups of electrodes and which all concern elongated, non-conductive, spaced apart curve defining elements arranged longitudinally in the direction of flow through the electrolytic apparatus, hence suggested as providing a helical flow (all taught in [0018]).
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have provided such non-conductive elements in the Wiemers system, to further increase contact of the fluid being treated with the electrode, thus more completely treating the fluid being treated.
Claim 4 further differs by requiring wherein the flow control device maintains space and is positioned between adjacent non-donating electrodes. As described with respect to claim 3, Gilmore teaches such flow control device in the form of a turbulence inducers, which are also disclosed in [0018] as aiding in maintaining the conductive electrodes in a spaced apart configuration.
Such spacing would have also advantageously have maintained a flow path for the liquid being treated between the electrodes as urged by Gilmore in [0018].
Claim 5 further differs by requiring wherein the flow control device is composed (i.e. “comprised) of a non-conductive material.
The clause “the flow control device is composed of a non-conductive material” is interpreted as broadly reciting such device as comprised of, or including at least non-conductive material, not excluding the device also containing conductive material.
Gilmore teaches such flow control device in the form of turbulence inducers, consisting of non-conductive elements which are attached to the face of electrodes and between groups of electrodes and which all concern elongated, non-conductive, spaced apart curve defining elements arranged longitudinally in the direction of flow through the electrolytic apparatus, hence suggested as providing a helical flow (all taught in [0018]).
It would have again, been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have provided such non-conductive elements in the Wiemers system, to further increase contact of the fluid being treated with the electrode, thus more completely treating the fluid being treated.
Claims 8, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemers et al PGPUBS Document US 2010/0116686 (Weimers) in view of Gilmore et al PGPUBS Document US 2011/0308938 (Gilmore).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For claim 8, Wiemers further discloses wherein the non-donating electrodes are each electrically connected to respective electrode posts, and transfers an electrical current from the power distribution system to corresponding non- donating electrodes [0042 regarding such corner posts 2125 and 2139].
Gilmore teaches an electrolytic or electrochemical apparatus and method [0010], which like Wiemers (Abstract and [0006] regarding treating water by electrocoagulation), is directed to treating water by inducing electrocoagulation [0047]
Claim 8 differs from Wiemers by requiring wherein each electrode post extends through the cover.
Gilmore teaches wherein an electrochemical reaction chamber comprises a “lid” or cover [0059-0060 re reaction chamber 54 having lids or covers 66], and through which lids electrode posts extend [0061]. Such configuration of cover and electrode posts is taught by Gilmore in [0061] as being a “further safety measure, where the lids receive the protruding electrode posts, the post ends and lid are covered by non-conductive safety covers 74, which isolate the high DC power going into the electrodes”.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the Wiemers system by installing the disclosed posts as extending through a cover of the reaction chamber, as taught by Gilmore, to provide further electrical safety, so as to isolate the DC power going into the electrodes.
For independent claim 11, Wiemers discloses a method of circulating raw water through a fluid activation system to produce treated water (figures 1-3 and [0002, 0006 and 0009-0013 re electrochemically treating, and specifically electrocoagulating i.e. “activating” effluent water in a treatment apparatus or system] and [0040 re circulating feed water flow through the system with automated or manual control of the flow by valves, regulators and pumps], the method comprising:
pumping the raw water from a water source to a mix vessel via a first pump assembly, water source ([0002-0003 re industrial effluents from industrial process sources], figure 2 and [0022] re such water passing through pH and chemical dosing, i.e. “mixing” apparatus], as well as through apparatus vessel 803 where it is aerated, i.e. “mixed” with air or gas, and [0040 re plural pumps and pump control] ;
activating the raw water in a reaction chamber including a flow control device and non-donating electrodes disposed inside the reaction chamber to produce treated water via electrochemistry a vessel fluidly coupled to the inlet line and including a reaction chamber having a flow control device
(figure 2 and [0040 and 0042] re electrocoagulation apparatus 805 and flow control device(s) in the form of a pumps, valves, regulators and pump controls both within and otherwise associated with apparatus vessel 805, configured to control feed water flow, and,
non-donating electrodes disposed inside the reaction chamber, the non-donating electrodes defining at least one cathode electrode and at least one anode electrode configured to treat the raw water to produce treated water ([0042 re each secondary chamber including an anode, cathode and bipolar electrode 2133, 2135 and 2137] and [0043 and 0058 re electrodes or electrode plates being of non-metallic or non-sacrificial material]);
treating the water under a two-phase liquid-gas environment, such that the treated water becomes treated water at a second end of the reaction chamber mix vessel [0022 and 0030 re the effluent water being mixed by aeration with air or gas, thus forming a two phase liquid/gas mixture environment, and also see [0034 re the electrochemical or electrocoagulation vessel 805 also being a reaction chamber promoting air/gas hydrodynamic mixing with the water ];
mixing the treated water and additional raw water at a first end of the mix vessel under a two-phase liquid-gas environment, such that a mixture of the treated water and the additional raw water becomes treated water at a second end of the mix vessel [0034 re the electrochemical or electrocoagulation vessel 805 also being a reaction chamber promoting air/gas hydrodynamic mixing with the water with electrochemical or electrocoagulation water treatment]; and
thereafter discharging the treated water out of the second end of the mix vessel to a storage container via a third pump assembly (see again figure 2 and [0040] re pumps and pump controls, i.e. “pump assembly”, re water being directed, after passage through the electrochemical vessel 805 to clarifier apparatus 809 where solids precipitate from the water during a residence or storage time period].
Independent claim 11 differs from the Wiemers system by requiring the steps of pumping the treated water from the reaction chamber back to the mix vessel via a second pump assembly; and,
mixing the treated water and additional raw water at a first end of the mix vessel .
Gilmore teaches a method of treating water by activation and electrocoagulation, in which water is treated in a reaction chamber [0047 re electrocoagulation system 30] and wherein at least a portion of the treated water is pumped or otherwise returned from such reaction chamber back to a mix vessel via a second pump assembly; and,
mixing the treated water and additional raw water at a first end of the mix vessel, such that a mixture of the treated water and the additional raw water becomes treated water at a second end of the mix vessel.
Gilmore teaches an electrolytic or electrochemical apparatus and method [0010], which like Wiemers (Abstract and [0006] regarding treating water by electrocoagulation), and is directed to treating water by inducing electrocoagulation [0047], in a system having a flow control device in the form of anode and cathode plates which function to generate a reversal of field at successive serial lengths of a flow path to impart increased turbulence and reactivity [0023].
Gilmore teaches that such process steps of returning, pumped treated water back to a mix vessel for mixing with additional raw, untreated water, and then treating the mixture ([0065-0068 re recycling of treated effluent from reaction chambers 92 so as to mix with incoming additional flow of raw water and mixing with added materials in step 95], such process facilitated by pumping with inlet pump 56 and outlet pump 50 with adjustable pump speeds [0055], recycled treated water being mixed with raw water [0070].
Gilmore teaches that such mixing, results in a more effectively treated water with a reduced contaminant level, by more thoroughly exposing the entire flow volume of the water to the treatment geometries [0066], and by improving reactivity and allowing processing at higher flow rates [0068].
It would have been accordingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of water treatment by electrolytic activation and electrocoagulation, to have modified the Wiemers method by providing for such pumped returning of a portion of initially treated water from a mixing and treating chamber, to a mix vessel where it is mixed with additional raw water, and then re-introducing such mixed water to the mixing and treating chamber, as taught by Gilmore, so as to provide a more thoroughly treated water with a reduced contaminant level, by more thoroughly exposing the entire flow volume of the water to the treatment geometries [Gilmore at 0066], and by improving reactivity and allowing processing at higher flow rates [Gilmore at 0068].
For claim 14, Gilmore further suggests a further step recirculating the mixture within the mix vessel through the reaction chamber a second and subsequent times via the second pump assembly to further activate the mixture ([0068-0069 re recycling seeding step 102 with all or a portion of the treated water being returned to one or more of treating chambers 102], and [0055 re outlet pump 50 plumbed to an optional return line, allowing selective return of a part of processed effluent]).
Further modification of the Wiemers method of repeated recirculation, mixing and activation, as taught by Gilmore would have resulted in a still more thoroughly treated water with a reduced contaminant level, as suggested by Gilmore, to provide a more thoroughly treated water with a reduced contaminant level, by still more thoroughly expose the entire flow volume of the water to the treatment geometries [Gilmore at 0066], and by further improving reactivity and allowing processing at higher flow rates [Gilmore at 0068].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemers et al PGPUBS Document US 2010/0116686 (Weimers) in view of Kazi et al patent 6,270,650 (Kazi).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 9 differs from Weimers by requiring wherein the non-donating electrodes are tubular in shape and formed of a metallic mesh material.
Kazi teaches an electrolytic treatment vessel with non-sacrificial, thus non-donating electrodes being tubular in shape and formed of a metallic mesh material (Abstract and column 8, lines 21-37 re electrodes being annularly-shaped, thus tubular, being inert to the aqueous solution being treated, hence “non-sacrificial”, and of meal mesh, porous material (column 4, lines 56-65).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the Wiemers system by providing at least some of the non-donating electrodes to have such tubular shape and being formed of a metallic mesh material, to maximize relative surface area of the electrode relative to chamber space, and to present a high surface area to produce low current density & prevent formation of hot spots, ensuring minimum polarization (Kazi at column 4, lines 56-65).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemers et al PGPUBS Document US 2010/0116686 (Weimers) in view of Taylor PGPUBS Document US 2017/0081219 (Taylor).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 10 differs from Wiemers by requiring wherein the non-donating electrodes are concentrically arranged within the reaction chamber such that an outermost non-donating electrode of the non-donating electrodes defines a first surface area and an innermost electrode of the non- donating electrodes defines a second surface area that is less than the first surface area.
Taylor teaches such a concentric arrangement or “array” of electrodes in an electrolytic water remediation device in which some of the electrodes which may be either anodic or cathodic surround and form outermost electrodes, relative to inner electrodes.
Taylor teaches that such a device may be employed in a wide variety of industrial and commercial water treatment and remediation environments [0041-0042], with such concentric array of electrodes, inducing turbulent flow to water being treated and enhancing contact of the water with the surface of the electrodes [0040].
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the Wiemers system by providing at least some of the non-donating electrodes to be concentrically arrayed as in the Taylor device, in order to induce turbulent flow to water being treated and enhancing contact of the water with the surface of the electrodes.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemers et al PGPUBS Document US 2010/0116686 (Weimers) in view of Gilmore et al PGPUBS Document US 2011/0308938 (Gilmore), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Brennan patent 2,277,687, and additionally in view of Taylor PGPUBS Document US 2017/0081219 (Taylor).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 12, further differs by requiring a non-conductive rail type of flow control device which is circumvoluted between the non-donating electrodes in a corkscrew shape.
The clause “flow control device is configured to generate a passive spiral flow” is interpreted as arrangement and location of such device being so as to generate a non-moving, steady path of flow through the device.
Gilmore teaches an electrolytic or electrochemical apparatus and method [0010], which like Wiemers (Abstract and [0006] regarding treating water by electrocoagulation), is directed to treating water by inducing electrocoagulation [0047], in a system having a flow control device in the form of anode and cathode plates which function to generate a reversal of field at successive serial lengths of a flow path to impart increased turbulence and reactivity [0023], as well as “turbulence inducer” flow control devices in the reaction chamber which extend transversely to a face of an electrode and induce turbulence and curved flow, hence a spiral flow [0018].
Brennan teaches an electrolytic condensers, including a reactor chamber 10, having an electrode 19 in the form of a spiral, helical shape in the form of a corkscrew , thus also generating a passive spiral flow of water through the reaction chamber (figure 1 and col 2, ln 39-50).
Brennan teaches that such form of electrode, provides for an increased contact of the fluid being treated with all of the material of the electrode, thus more completely treating the fluid (col 2, ln 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the electrocoagulation art to have further augmented the Wiemers method, by configuring at least some of the electrodes to be in a spiral or corkscrew shape as taught by Brennan, and also to have provided a flow control device in the form a spacer alongside such electrode(s), as cumulatively taught by Gilmore and Brennan to generate a passive spiral flow of water through the reaction chamber, in order to impart increased turbulence and reactivity in the flow and , provides for an increased contact of the fluid being treated with all of the material of the electrode.
Claim 12 also differs by reciting wherein the non-donating electrodes are concentrically disposed relative to each other. Taylor teaches such a concentric arrangement or “array” of electrodes in an electrolytic water remediation device in which some of the electrodes which may be either anodic or cathodic surround and form outermost electrodes, relative to inner electrodes.
Taylor teaches that such a device may be employed in a wide variety of industrial and commercial water treatment and remediation environments [0041-0042], with such concentric array of electrodes, inducing turbulent flow to water being treated and enhancing contact of the water with the surface of the electrodes [0040].
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the Wiemers method by providing at least some of the non-donating electrodes to be concentrically arrayed as in the Taylor device, in order to induce turbulent flow to water being treated and enhancing contact of the water with the surface of the electrodes.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemers et al PGPUBS Document US 2010/0116686 (Weimers) in view of Gilmore et al PGPUBS Document US 2011/0308938 (Gilmore), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Brennan patent 2,277,687.
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For claim 13, Wiemers further discloses wherein the step of activating the raw water in the reaction chamber includes supplying an electrical current through the non-donating electrodes [0032, 0035 and 0036].
Claim 13 differs by requiring inducing of a helical flow of the raw water within the reaction chamber that passes through the non-donating electrodes via the flow control device.
The clause “flow control device is configured to generate a passive spiral flow” is interpreted as arrangement and location of such device being so as to generate a non-moving, steady path of flow through the device.
Gilmore teaches an electrolytic or electrochemical apparatus and method [0010], which like Wiemers (Abstract and [0006] regarding treating water by electrocoagulation), is directed to treating water by inducing electrocoagulation [0047], in a system having a flow control device in the form of anode and cathode plates which function to generate a reversal of field at successive serial lengths of a flow path to impart increased turbulence and reactivity [0023], as well as “turbulence inducer” flow control devices in the reaction chamber which extend transversely to a face of an electrode and induce turbulence and curved flow, hence a spiral flow [0018].
Brennan teaches an electrolytic condensers, including a reactor chamber 10, having an electrode 19 in the form of a spiral, helical shape in the form of a corkscrew , thus also generating a passive spiral flow of water through the reaction chamber (figure 1 and col 2, ln 39-50).
Brennan teaches that such form of electrode, provides for an increased contact of the fluid being treated with all of the material of the electrode, thus more completely treating the fluid (col 2, ln 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the electrocoagulation art to have augmented the Wiemers system, by configuring at least some of the electrodes to be in a spiral or corkscrew shape as taught by Brennan, and also to have provided a flow control device in the form a spacer alongside such electrode(s), as cumulatively taught by Gilmore and Brennan to generate a passive spiral flow of water through the reaction chamber, in order to impart increased turbulence and reactivity in the flow and , provides for an increased contact of the fluid being treated with all of the material of the electrode.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemers et al PGPUBS Document US 2010/0116686 (Weimers) in view of Gilmore et al PGPUBS Document US 2011/0308938 (Gilmore), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lee et al Korean Publication KR 101030075 (Lee) and the accompanying Escapenet English translation of Lee.
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS PUBS and Escapenet Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For claim 15, Gilmore teaches the step of mixing at least a portion of the treated water and the additional raw water, and transforming the mixture to treated water.
Claim 15 additionally differs by requiring the step of introducing the treated water into the mix vessel via high-velocity jet lines, creating microbubbles through the mixture.
Lee teaches an electrocoagulation effluent treatment tank incorporating an electrolytic cell and a mixing tank or vessel [0002 and 0017], in which treated water is introduced into the mix vessel via high-velocity jet lines, creating microbubbles through the mixture ([0017]).
Lee teaches that such injected microbubbles induce floatation of flocs of impurities and precipitation of uncollected floc to reduce the level of metallic impurities in the water [0017, last 6 lines], Lee being drawn specifically to removal of aluminum ions from water being discharged.
It would have been accordingly further obvious to have further modified the Weimers method, by such step of introducing water into the mixing vessel, to induce floatation of flocs of impurities and precipitation of uncollected floc to reduce the level of metallic impurities in the water.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patent Publication CN 103395867 and the accompanying Escapenet translation concerns an electrocoagulation device having electrode plates or bars in series.
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 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/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
08/26/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights