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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12-18 recites “Claim”. The letter “C” should be in lowercase. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitations to “claim.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “the anode” is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Field et al., (US 2009/0314659 A1, hereinafter as “Field”) in view of Sorenson (US 4,790, 914, hereinafter as “Sorenson”).
Regarding claim 1, Field teaches a tubular electrolysis cell for electrochemically treating flowing liquid (¶¶ [0037-0038, 0054-0055]; Figs. 2-4A illustrates an example of an electrolysis cell having a tubular shape and the different perspective of the claimed invention). Field discloses a flow-through electrochemical reactor comprising:
tubular housing (50, Fig. 4A) having an interior, openings (63, Fig. 4A) and (65, Fig. 4A) forming the inlet and outlet, respectively (¶¶ [0061-0063]) (a hollow reactor shell having an internal wall, a fluid inlet for providing fluid to an interior of the hollow reactor shell, and a fluid outlet for withdrawing fluid from the flow-through reactor);
(inner tubular electrode (22, Fig. 4A) disposed inside tubular housing (50, Fig. 4A) and defining an interior volume (¶¶ [0055, 0057]) (a hollow cathode disposed within the hollow reactor shell;
outer electrode cylinder (20, Fig. 4A) concentrically/coaxially surrounding inner electrode cylinder (22, Fig. 4A) (¶¶ [0055, 0077]) (a cylindrical anode disposed substantially parallel to and concentrically outside the cathode);
cell (10, Fig. 2) is connected to external liquid source (12, Fig. 2) by an inlet tube, and inlet flow path (70, Fig. 4A) is fluidically coupled to the interior of inner electrode (22, Fig. 4A) and passes through porous inner electrode (22, Fig. 4A) into the reactor/electrode region (¶¶ [0058, 0064, 0079]) (a tubal member disposed inside the hollow reactor shell, the tubal member being configured to pass solution from outside the hollow reactor shell to the interior of the hollow reactor shell);
inlet flow 70 Fig. 4A) passes through porous inner electrode 22 Fig. 4A) into the radial gap between inner electrode (22, Fig. 4A) and outer electrode (20, Fig. 4A), and outlet flow (72, Fig. 4A) passes from the radial electrode region through inner electrode (22, Fig. 4A) and to outlet (65, Fig. 4A) (¶¶ [0064, 0066, 0079]) (a solution flow path being formed between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet, the solution flow path extending from the fluid inlet, into a space between the cathode and the cylindrical anode, and to the fluid outlet).
But Field does not disclose a tubal member disposed inside the hollow reactor shell
However, Sorenson teaches a hydraulically permeable, hollow, cylindrically shaped cathode, and a hydraulically permeable, hollow, cylindrically shaped anode concentric with and surrounding the cathode to define an annular space there within (Abstract; col. 2, lines 35-47), disclosing the hollow reactor shell feature.
Field and Sorenson are analogous arts because both concern cylindrical/concentric electrochemical cells having controlled liquid flow through electrode reaction region.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Field’s polarity-interchangeable concentric electrodes with inner electrode as the cathode and surrounding outer electrode as the anode, the hollow reactor shell feature, as taught by Sorenson because the modification predictably retains compact coaxial treatment geometry while providing advantage of promoting removal of cathodically generated gas and reducing electrical inefficiency due to gas blinding (Sorenson: col. 2, lines 23-31; col 3, lines 26-41).
In regard to claim 4, Field teaches electrodes (20, 22, Fig. 4A) formed of titanium (¶ [0041]), and metallic mesh including T316 stainless steel (¶ [0051]) (wherein the cathode comprises one or more of sub-stoichiometric titanium oxide, titanium, stainless steel, aluminum, nickel, or copper).
In regard to claim 5, Field discloses inner electrode (22, Fig. 4A) is porous to fluid flow and maybe be formed as a mesh (¶¶ [0041, 0051, 0064, 0066]).
In regard to claim 8, Field discloses tubular inner electrode (22, Fig. 4A) provides the claimed tubal member (¶¶ [0055, 0064]), and Sorenson teaches assigning the inner hollow cylindrical electrode as the cathode (col. 2, lines 34-47).
In regard to claim 9, Field discloses inner tubular electrode (22, Fig. 4A) is substantially coaxial with outer electrode (20, Fig. 4A) and disposed within tubular housing (50, 4A) (¶¶ [0055, 0077]).
In regard to claim 10, Field tubular housing (50, 9A); tubular electrolysis cell (10, 4A) having a circular radial cross-section (¶¶ [0054-0055, 0076], Figs. 4A, 9A-9D shows the different perspective of the claimed invention).
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Field in view of Sorenson, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zaky et al., (Porous Substoichiometric TiO2 Anodes as Reactive Electrochemical Membranes for Water Treatment, ES&T, 2013, 47, pp. 6554-6563, hereinafter as “Zaky”)
Regarding claim 2, Field, in view of Sorenson, discloses the claimed concentric flow-through electrochemical reactor as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose “wherein the anode comprises sub-stoichiometric titanium oxide.
However, Zaky teaches an anodic reactive electrochemical membrane for water treatment comprising a porous stoichiometric titanium oxide (Ti4O7) tubular ceramic electrode (Abstract; p. 6555, Introduction section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-14) (the anode comprises substoichiometric titanium oxide). Zaky discloses the porous substoichiometric TiO2/Ti4O7 anodic tubular electrode (Abstract; p. 6555, Introduction section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-14) (the anode comprises substoichiometric titanium oxide).
Field, Sorenson and Zaky are analogous because each concerns electrochemical liquid/water treatment using electrodes through or adjacent to which liquid flows.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Zaky’s Ti4O7 as a conductive anodic material specifically useful for electrochemical water treatment and reports increase reactive surface/mass-transfer performance when operated as a porous electrode, thereby predictably enhancing electrochemical treatment (Zaky: Abstract; p. 6557, left column, first paragraph, Mass Transfer Determination, lines 1-30).
In regard to claim 3, Field, in view of Sorenson, discloses the claimed concentric flow-through electrochemical reactor as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and further teaches electrodes having apertures or mesh construction (¶ [0041]. Field expressly teaches that electrodes (20, 22, Fig 4A) may contain apertures of be formed as mesh and that inner and outer mesh electrodes (20, 22, Fig 4A) are porous to liquid flow (¶ [0066]). In addition, Zaky discloses a porous Ti4O7 anodic reactive electrochemical membrane (wherein the anode is porous) (Abstract; p. 6555, Introduction section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-14). It would have been obvious to employ the porous anode taught by Zaky in Field-Sorenson combination because that porous operation increases electro-active surface and advective transport to the electrode, thereby enhancing electrochemical water treatment (Zaky: Abstract; p. 6557, left column, first paragraph, Mass Transfer Determination, lines 1-30).
In regard to claim 6, Field, in view of Sorenson, discloses the claimed concentric flow-through electrochemical reactor as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 but does not disclose “wherein one of the anodes and the cathode comprises a reactive electrochemical membrane.” Zaky teaches a porous Ti4O7 tubular anode operated as an anodic reactive electrochemical membrane (REM) for water treatment (Abstract; p. 6555, Introduction section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-14). It would have been obvious to employ Zaky’s as an electrode in Field-Sorenson electrochemical reactor because that filtration through the electroactive porous membrane porous electrode substantially enhances contaminant transport, thereby enhancing advection- assisted mass transfer and electrochemical oxidation of organic compounds at the reactive membrane (Zaky: Abstract; p. 6557, left column, first paragraph, Mass Transfer Determination, lines 1-30).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Field in view of Sorenson, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nyberg et al. (US 2007/0108056 A1, hereinafter as “Nyberg”).
In regard to claim 7, Field, in view of Sorenson discloses the claimed concentric flow-through electrochemical reactor as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 but does not disclose “further comprising one of a pre-filter or a post-filter”.
However, Nyberg teaches electrochemical fluid treatment apparatus (100, Fig. 1) incorporating filters (177b, Fig. 1) upstream or downstream of electrochemical cell (102, Fig. 1), including sediment filters (¶¶ [0149, 0150]), and also teaches activated carbon filter (187, Fig. 10) surrounded by pre-filter (223, Fig. 10) and post-filter (225, Fig. 10) (¶ [0151]). Nyberg further teaches placing activated-carbon filter 197 upstream of electrochemical cells 102 or in output pipes (¶¶ [0152-0153]; Fig. 1 and Fig. 10 show different perspective of the claimed invention).
Field, Sorenson and Nyberg are analogous arts because each concerns treatment of flowing fluids in conjunction with electrochemical processing, while Nyberg directly addresses complementary filtration of the steam entering or leaving an electrochemical cell.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Nyberg’s pre- or post-filter into Field-Sorenson electrochemical reactor because removal of suspended particulates before electrochemical treatment and residual contaminants after treatment reduces particulate loading and improved treated-fluid quality (Nyberg: ¶ [0009]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Field in view of Sorenson.
Regarding claim 11, Field teaches a method of electrolyzing liquid by passing liquid through an electrolysis cell and applying energization voltage between coaxial inner and outer electrodes (¶ [0011]; claim 12): a method of electrochemical treatment of water, comprising:
Field discloses tubular housing (50, Fig. 2); tubular electrolysis cell (10, Fig. 2 ) having a circular radial cross-section (¶¶ [0054-0055) (providing a flow-through reactor comprising a hollow reactor shell having an internal wall), openings (63, Fig. 4B) and (65, Fig. 4B) ( a fluid inlet and fluid outlet) (¶¶ [0061, 0063]), inner tubular electrode (22, Fig. 4B) having an interior volume (¶¶ [0055, 0057, 0064]) (a hollow first electrode disposed within the hollow reactor shell), outer electrode cylinder (20, Fig. 4B) substantially coaxial with inner electrode (¶¶ [0055, 0077]) (a cylindrical second electrode disposed concentrically outside the hollow first electrode), inner tubular electrode (22, Fig. B) (¶ [0055]) (a tubal member disposed inside the hollow reactor shell), inlet flow (70, Fig. 4A) towards the interior/through porous inner electrode (22, Fig. 4A) then to radial electrode region then through inner electrode (22, Fig. 4A), proceeding to the outlet flow (72, Fig. 4A) (¶¶ [0064, 0066, 0079]) (the fluid inlet, the tubal member, a space between the hollow first electrode and the cylindrical second electrode, and the fluid outlet forming a fluid flow path).
electrodes (20, 22, Fig. 4A) connected to opposite terminals of a power supply and energization voltage applied therebetween (¶ [0042]) (applying electrical power to the hollow first electrode and to the cylindrical second electrode);
electrochemical treatment/activation of fed water between anode and cathode produces electrochemically activated liquid having sanitizing/cleaning properties (¶¶ [0038, 0044, 0045, 0049, 0050]) (electron transfer between the hollow first electrode and the cylindrical second electrode purifies the solution thereby producing purified water, prior to withdrawing the purified water).
But Field does not disclose a fluid inlet for providing fluid to an interior of the hollow reactor shell, a fluid outlet for withdrawing fluid from the hollow reactor shell, and the fluid outlet forming a fluid flow path through the hollow reactor shell.
However, Sorenson teaches a hydraulically permeable, hollow, cylindrically shaped cathode, and a hydraulically permeable, hollow, cylindrically shaped anode concentric with and surrounding the cathode to define an annular space there within (Abstract; col. 2, lines 35-47), disclosing the hollow reactor shell feature.
Field and Sorenson are analogous arts because both concern cylindrical/concentric electrochemical cells having controlled liquid flow through electrode reaction region.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Field’s polarity-interchangeable concentric electrodes with inner electrode as the cathode and surrounding outer electrode as the anode, the hollow reactor shell feature, as taught by Sorenson to provide the features “a fluid inlet for providing fluid to an interior of the hollow reactor shell”, “a fluid outlet for withdrawing fluid from the hollow reactor shell”, and “the fluid outlet forming a fluid flow path through the hollow reactor shell” because the modification predictably retains compact coaxial treatment geometry while providing advantage of promoting removal of cathodically generated gas and reducing electrical inefficiency due to gas blinding (Sorenson: col. 2, lines 23-31; col 3, lines 24-41).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Field in view of Sorenson, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Zaky.
Regarding claim 12, Field, in view of Sorenson, discloses the claimed method for electrochemical treatment of water of claim 11, but does not disclose “wherein the second electrode is a reactive electrochemical membrane disposed between the tubal member and the internal wall of the hollow reactor shell in a direction substantially parallel to the anode.”
However, Zaky teaches an anodic reactive electrochemical membrane for water treatment comprising a porous stoichiometric titanium oxide (Ti4O7) tubular ceramic electrode (Abstract; p. 6555, Introduction section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-14) (the anode comprises substoichiometric titanium oxide). Zaky discloses the porous sub-stoichiometric TiO2/Ti4O7 anodic tubular electrode (Abstract; p. 6555, Introduction section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-14) (the anode comprises substoichiometric titanium oxide).
Field, Sorenson and Zaky are analogous because each concerns electrochemical liquid/water treatment using electrodes through or adjacent to which liquid flows.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Zaky’s Ti4O7 as a conductive anodic material specifically useful for electrochemical water treatment taught by Field, in view of Sorenson, because the reports increase reactive surface/mass-transfer performance when operated as a porous electrode, thereby predictably enhancing electrochemical treatment (Zaky: Abstract; p. 6557, left column, first paragraph, Mass Transfer Determination, lines 1-30).
Claim 13, 14, and 18 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Field in view of Sorenson, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Poirier et al., (US 2012/0160706 A1, hereinafter as “Poirier”).
Regarding claim 13, Field, in view of Sorenson, discloses the claimed method for electrochemical treatment of water of claim 11, but does not disclose “wherein the solution further comprises a live microorganism, an anthropogenic compound, a natural compound, or a combination thereof.”
Poirier teaches electrochemical treatment of wastewater contaminated with pathogens and organic/inorganic materials (Abstract; ¶ [0003, 0011, 0022]) and specifically treats sewage/graywater containing fecal coliform organisms (¶ [0073]; Table 4 shows TSS, COD, BOD, Oil, free and Total Cl2 and Fecal Coliforms removal results; Fig. 4A show a schematic representation of a WETT unit for the treatment of Blackwater/Greywater).
Field, Sorenson and Poirier are analogous arts because each concerns electrochemical treatment of aqueous streams, with Poirier directly addressing electrochemical treatment of microorganism-containing wastewater.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Field-Sorenson reactor to treat microorganism-containing water as taught by Poirier because electrochemical treatment provides contaminant destruction and disinfection, thereby reducing biological contamination and produce discharge-compliant effluent (Poirier: ¶ [0067, 0073]; Table 4 shows TSS, COD, BOD, Oil, free and Total Cl2 and Fecal Coliforms removal results).
In regard to claim 14, Field, in view of Sorenson and further in view Poirier, discloses microorganisms-containing wastewater treatment of aqueous fluids Abstract; ¶ [0003, 0011, 0022]). Poirier teaches hydroxyl radicals generated during electrolytic oxidation (EO) reduce biological agents; electrolysis of saline water additionally generates chlorine-based oxidants (¶¶ [0052, 0067, 0068]). Poirier specifically teaches that hydroxyl radicals generated during EO are sufficient to reduce biological agents in solution (¶ [0067]), and that hypochlorite/hypochlorous acid acts with hydroxyl radicals to oxidize contaminants and inactive bacteria (¶ [0051]). It would have been obvious to operate Field-Sorenson reactor under Poirier’s electro-oxidation conditions because those conditions generate known oxidants during electrolysis providing simultaneous oxidation of dissolved contaminants and microorganism s inactivation, thereby improving disinfection and effluent quality (Poirier: ¶¶ [0051-0052, 0067]).
In regard to claim 18, Poirier teaches terminating electro-oxidation treatment based on readings from online oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), chlorine, and/or pH sensors (¶¶ [0080-0081]) and teaches the use of ORP probe and chlorine sensor to monitor process progression and treatment termination (¶ [0085]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Field in view of Sorenson and Poirier, as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Zaky.
In regard to claim 15, Field, in view of Sorenson and Poirier, discloses microorganisms-containing wastewater treatment of aqueous fluids and use of oxidants in the solution to produce purified/potable water (Poirier: ¶¶ [0014, 0015]) but does not disclose the fluorinated or non-fluorinated C6-C30 aromatic organic compound.
Zaky teaches electrochemical treatment of p-methoxyphenol, a non-fluorinated aromatic organic compound within the recited carbon-number range, using a porous Ti4O7 reactive electrochemical membrane (REM), and teaches removal by electro-assisted adsorption followed at higher potentials by hydroxyl-radical oxidation (Abstract; p.6555, Materials and Methods section, right column, second paragraph, lines 1-6).
Field, Sorenson, Poirier and Zaky are analogous arts because they address complementary aspects of electrochemical treatment of contaminated aqueous streams -reactor geometry, oxidation generation, contaminant transport, and electrochemical oxidation.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Field-Sorenson-Poirier electro-oxidation process to an aromatic contaminant as taught by Zaky because such contaminants are susceptible to electrochemically generated OH radical oxidation enhancing transport of contaminants coupled with oxidative contaminant destruction (Zaky: p. 6561, left column, second paragraph lines 1-18).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Field in view of Sorenson, Poirier and Zaky, as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Palanisami (Cerium (IV)-mediated electrochemical oxidation process for removal of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 2015, 28, pp. 28-31, hereinafter as “Palanisami”).
Regarding claim 16, Field, in view of Sorenson, Poirier and Zaky, discloses the anthropogenic compound is a fluorinated or non-fluorinated C6-C30 aromatic organic compound as discussed in claim 15, but does not disclose the C6-C30 aromatic organic compound comprises a C6-C30 fused aromatic 1,4-dioxane compound and the C6-C30 fused aromatic 1,4-dioxane compound is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin.
However, Palanisami teaches electrochemical oxidative removal of polychlorinated di-benzo-p-dioxins including 2,3,7,8-TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (Abstract; p. 31, Conclusions section, lines 1-12).
Palanisami is analogous art to Field, Sorenson, Poirier and Zaky because it addresses the same problem of electrochemically oxidizing persistent organic contaminants and is reasonably pertinent to extending the known electrochemical treatment process to the recited dioxin contaminant.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the electrochemical oxidation of Field-Sorenson-Poirier-Zaky to the claimed dioxin-type contaminant taught by Palanisami because electrogenerated Ce (IV) oxidant effectively destroys PCDD/F contaminants thereby promote rapid destruction of a highly persistent organic contaminant (Palanisami: Abstract; p. 31, Conclusions section, lines 1-12).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
(I) Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,030,794 in view of Field et al., (US 2009/0314659 A1, hereinafter as “Field”). Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the instant and reference claims are directed to substantially the same flow-through electrochemical reactor having a hollow reactor shell, inlet/outlet, concentric cylindrical electrodes, an interelectrode solution-flow path, porous/electrode-material limitations, filtration, an internal tubal member, and a cylindrical shell. The principal difference is the instant claim’s inner-cathode/outer-anode polarity arrangement and redistribution of the tubal-member limitations into the dependent claim. U.S. Patent No. 12,030,794 is from the same Mullen/Reckhow patent family and claims the closely related flow-through electrochemical-treatment subject matter.
Field establishes that co-axial inner and outer electrodes in a tubular electrolysis cell may be assigned alternative anode/cathode polarities. Thus, it would have been obvious to configure the concentric reactor claims in U.S. Patent No. 12,030,794 with the instant inner cathode and surrounding cylindrical anode, because the modification merely applies a known alternative electrode-polarity arrangement to the same concentric electrochemical reactor, yielding the predictable electrochemical-treatment function.
The electrode-polarity reversal and redistribution of already claimed tubular/reactor limitations constitute obvious variations of the reference claims and do not render instant claims 1-10 patentably distinct.
(II) Claims 11-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 14-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,396,463. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to the same essential electrochemical water treatment method comprising providing a flow through reactor, applying power to electrodes, passing solution through the reactor, electrochemically treating the solution, and withdrawing purified water, with substantially corresponding dependent treatment limitation. U.S. Patent No. 11,396,463 was issued to Mullen and Reckhow and is assigned to University of Massachusetts.
In particular, reference claims 14-19 correspond to the instant dependent subject matter concerning microorganisms/anthropogenic or natural compounds; generated oxidants and microorganism treatment; C6-C30 aromatic organic compounds and oxidation thereof; fused aromatic/dioxin subject matter; 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin; and process sensors. The differences in electrode geometry and placement merely further define the apparatus by which the same electrochemical treatment method is performed and do not impart a patentably distinct method.
The instant claims 11-18 constitute an obvious variation or rearrangement of the method and dependent subject matter already claimed in U.S. Patent No. 11,396,463, and no secondary reference is necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights