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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have addressed every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/30/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combinations of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “The system of Claim 8, wherein the plurality of chambers include a plurality of acid chambers and a plurality of salt/base chambers aligned in an alternating arrangement between an anode and a cathode such that each said acid chamber is disposed between first salt/base chamber and a second salt/base chamber”
None of Figs. 3, 4, 5B, or 6B support each said acid chamber is disposed between first salt/base chamber and a second salt/base chamber.
Having a salt/base chamber on each side of each acid chamber would mean the cathode and anode are each adjacent to a salt/base chamber. That configuration does not appear supported, and if it were, it is uncertain whether a salt/base chamber directly adjacent to both electrodes would be enabled “such that the salt is converted into the acid substance and the base substance, and such that the base substance increases a pH level of the base product stream above 13.5” (Claim 1, upon which Claim 9 depends).
However, Examiner notes that Figs. 3-4 positively support “each said acid chamber is disposed adjacent at least one of a first salt/base chamber and a second salt/base chamber”.
Claim 10 depends on Claim 9 and is also rejected.
As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. MPEP 2173.06 (II). As written, Claims 9-10 are not further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0094846A1, hereinafter MISC, in view of 2021/0276892A1, hereinafter McDonald, as evidenced by SCP (Screw Conveyor Parts. Screw Conveyor Drives. May 13, 2022. Accessed 9/20/2025), hereinafter SCP, further in view of US 2020/0239346 A1, hereinafter Wallace.
Regarding Claim 1, MISC teaches a system comprising an electrochemical reactor (“Hybrid Electrochemical And Membrane-Based Processes”, Title) that is configured to generate an acid product stream including an acid substance (462 in Fig. 4) and a base product stream including a base substance (460 in Fig. 4; and/or 524c in Fig. 5) by electrochemically processing salt provided in an aqueous salt/base solution (456 in Fig 4; and/or 518 e-f and/or 524a in Fig. 5)
a chemical precipitator (534 and 536 in Fig. 5) configured to generate a process solution by mixing a slipstream portion of the base product stream (524c in Fig. 5; “In some embodiments, the concentrate stream may be recycled back to an upstream location of hybrid process
500. For example, as shown in the figure, recycle loop 524c is routed from electrodeionization unit 514 comprising concentrate from the electrodeionization unit 514, to input 518a. This recycle loop can help increase the overall water recovery rate of hybrid process 500”, [0101]) with an aqueous salt feedstock solution containing salt molecules and divalent ions (518a in Fig. 5; “input 518a may be feed water having a salinity of low to brackish (50 ppm to 5000 ppm). Input 518a may also include any concentration of silica”, [0088]); and
a control system configured to control pH such that a pH of the process solution is maintained at a divalent precipitation pH level that causes the divalent ions to precipitate in the form of insoluble solids (“a pH adjustment step and/or a coagulant adjustment step to enhance the silica removal”, [0089]; “Solids removal 536 may include a long residence holding tank, an angled plate separator, a dissolved air floatation system, any other conventional solids removal technologies, or a combination thereof”, [0090]),
wherein the chemical precipitator is further configured to generate the aqueous salt/base solution by removing the insoluble solids from the process solution before the aqueous salt/base solution is supplied to the electrochemical reactor (536 in Fig. 5; [0090]).
MISC is silent on whether the pH adjustment capability is due to a configuration to control the relative amounts of the base product slipstream portion and the aqueous salt feedstock solution.
However, McDonald teaches a system configured to control the relative amounts of the base product slipstream portion and the aqueous salt feedstock solution such the process causes ions to precipitate in the form of insoluble solids (“The separation process of FIG. 5 includes precipitation tank 550, screw conveyor 560, and valve 558. Outlet brine stream 508 is fed to precipitation tank 550, where the dissolved salts of brine stream 508 are allowed to precipitate out of solution”, [0096]).
McDonald also provides motivation for divalent ion selectivity: “ion exchange system 100 may be configured to remove several types of ions ( e.g., monovalent ions, divalent ions, etc.) or it may be configured to remove a specific type of ion”, [0072]
MISC is analogous because MISC is in the field of systems and methods that utilize bipolar electrodialysis to generate base and/or acid products by electrochemically processing salt.
McDonald is analogous because McDonald is in the field of systems and methods that utilize electrodialysis to generate base and/or acid products by electrochemically processing salt.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the individual bipolar membrane electrodialysis device of MISC Fig.4 in the electroacidification unit in the system of MISC Fig. 5 (“FIG. 4 shows an individual bipolar membrane electrodialysis device that may be used in an electroacidification unit”, [0036] MISC), and to include control mechanisms in MISC as taught by McDonald. Doing so would allow for pH adjustment, as taught in MISC, using tunable feed ratios.
Modified MISC is silent on pH ranges over pH 11 for either slipstream or base product.
However, Wallace teaches an electrochemical reactor (electrodialysis bipolar membrane, EDBM (260)) that is configured to generate an acid product stream including an acid substance (at least concentrated HCl, (84)) and a base product stream including a base substance (HCl and NaOH production system (54); at least caustic solution (82)) by electrochemically processing salt provided in an aqueous salt/base solution such that the salt is converted into the acid substance and the base substance (“the HCl and NaOH production system 54 receives the softened NaCl brine stream 254…The HCl and NaOH production system 54 is configured to treat the softened NaCl brine stream 254 to generate the HCl 112 and the NaOH 180 circulated to various processes in the system 10. Additionally, the HCl and NaOH production system 54 is configured to generate the concentrated HCl 84 and caustic solution 82 that are made to be available as commercial products.”, [0046]), such that the base substance increases a pH level of the base product stream above 13.5 (“caustic solution ( 4-50 wt % NaOH) for commercial use.”, [0065], 50% NaOH is > pH 13.5, given pH = 14 + log[- OH]); a chemical precipitator configured to generate a process solution by mixing a slipstream portion of the base product stream (at least either of : “the EDBM 260 may output a dilute NaCl stream 270 (e.g., approximately 3 to 5 weight percent NaCl), a NaOH output stream 272 ( e.g., approximately 8 to 10 weight percent NaOH)”, [0048] or “a portion of the softened NaCl brine stream 254 may be used to generate the bleach 194 used in various processes of the system 10”, [0047]) with an aqueous salt feedstock solution containing salt molecules and divalent ions, (“by adjusting the pH of the first effluent brine stream 216 to approximately 12, Ca2+ ions present in the first effluent brine stream 216 may be selectively precipitated”, [0042]); a pH of the process solution is maintained at a divalent precipitation pH level in the range of 11 to 13.5 that causes the divalent ions to precipitate in the form of insoluble solids (“by adjusting the pH of the first effluent brine stream 216 to approximately 12, Ca2+ ions present in the first effluent brine stream 216 may be selectively precipitated”, [0042]).
While Wallace is silent on the volume of the chemical precipitator or the volume of slipstream added, Wallace does teach both:
generating up to 50% wt. NaOH [0065]
maintaining about pH 12 for Ca2+ precipitation [0042] adjusted following a precipitation at pH 10 [0041]
Depending on the scale of the precipitation tank, it would be reasonable to suggest raising pH 10 to pH 12 using less than 5% of a 50 wt.% NaOH solution.
Wallace is analogous because Wallace is in the field of systems and methods that utilize electrodialysis to generate base and/or acid products by electrochemically processing salt, and applying the generated base to selective precipitation of divalent ions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to optimize the slipstream addition to the precipitator to attain and maintain the desired divalent ion precipitation pH while minimizing using the commercial-grade product, particularly when selectively precipitating multiple unique divalent ions, such as taught by Wallace. By fine tuning of pH-adjusted precipitation, “the brine stream may be fed to the mineral removal system to recover commercial grade components of interest from the brine stream” (Wallace [0039]).
Regarding Claim 2, MISC teaches the chemical precipitator comprises a reactor including a reactor housing (534 in Fig. 5), an outlet device (518b in Fig. 5) and a solids removal mechanism (536 and 522a in Fig 5), wherein the reactor housing surrounds the reaction chamber (534 in Fig. 5), wherein the outlet device is operably connected to the reactor housing and configured to remove salt/base solution from its associated reaction chamber (518b in Fig. 5), and wherein the solids removal mechanism is configured to remove the insoluble solids from its associated reaction chamber (536 and 522a in Fig 5).
Given the schematic nature of the connection depicted in Fig. 5, MISC does not positively teach the solids removal mechanism is mounted to the reactor housing.
However, McDonald teaches the chemical precipitator comprises a reactor including a reactor housing (550 in Fig. 5), an outlet device (Outlet leading to 540 in Fig. 5; or outlet above 560 in Fig. 5) and a solids removal mechanism (560 in Fig. 5), wherein the reactor housing surrounds a reaction chamber (550 in Fig. 5), wherein the outlet device is operably connected to the reactor housing and configured to remove the aqueous salt/base solution from its associated reaction chamber (Outlet leading to 540 in Fig. 5), and wherein the solids removal mechanism is mounted to the reactor housing and configured to remove the insoluble solids from its associated reaction chamber (560 in Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize a mounted connection between the reaction chamber and solids removal mechanism in MISC as taught by McDonald. Doing so would predictably result in a solids removal mechanism connection capable of facilitating the removal of the insoluble solids from the associated reaction chamber.
Regarding Claim 3, MISC teaches wherein the solids removal mechanism is operably configured to receive a portion of the insoluble solids and to expel the insoluble solids portion through an outlet (536 and 522a in Fig. 5).
While MISC does not positively teach the components within the reactor and the solids removal mechanism, MISC supports the use of conventional solids removal technologies (“Solids removal 536 may include a long residence holding tank, an angled plate separator, a dissolved air floatation system, any other conventional solids removal technologies, or a combination thereof” [0090]) all of which may include a side wall extending between an upper end of the reactor and a lower end of the reactor.
However, McDonald teaches the reactor housing includes a side wall extending between an upper end of the reactor and a lower end of the reactor (sidewall of 550 in Fig. 5), wherein the side wall includes a conical side wall portion (lower portion of 550 in Fig. 5) that includes a relatively narrow outlet opening adjacent to the lower end of the reactor (lower portion of 550 in Fig. 5) and is configured such that at least some of the insoluble solids that sink to the bottom of the process solution are guided by the conical side wall portion through the relatively narrow outlet opening (lower portion of 550 in Fig. 5), and wherein the solids removal mechanism is operably configured to receive a portion of the insoluble solids that is guided by the conical side wall portion through the relatively narrow outlet opening and to expel the insoluble solids portion through an outlet (lower portion of 550 through 560 in Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the conventional solids removal technology of McDonald in the system of MISC as suggested by MISC. Doing so would predictably result in a solids removal mechanism connection capable of facilitating the removal of the insoluble solids from the associated reaction chamber.
Regarding Claim 4, While MISC does not positively teach the components within the solids removal mechanism, MISC supports the use of conventional solids removal technologies (“Solids removal 536 may include a long residence holding tank, an angled plate separator, a dissolved air floatation system, any other conventional solids removal technologies, or a combination thereof” [0090]).
However, McDonald teaches the solids removal mechanism comprises a feed screw rotatably disposed in a feed pipe (560 in Fig 5), wherein the feed pipe includes an inlet that is operably connected to the reactor housing adjacent to the lower end of the reactor such that the portion of the insoluble solids that is guided by the conical sidewall portion through the relatively narrow outlet opening is directed into the feed pipe, (lower portion of 550 to 560 in Fig. 5) and
wherein the feed screw mechanism also includes a motor configured to rotate the feed screw within the feed pipe such that the portion of the insoluble solids disposed in the feed pipe is impelled by rotation of the feed screw toward the outlet, as evidenced by SCP (“Screw conveyors, like any other mechanical equipment, are driven by an electric motor”, p1 ¶1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the conventional solids removal technology of McDonald in the system of MISC as suggested by MISC. Doing so would predictably result in a solids removal mechanism connection capable of facilitating the removal of the insoluble solids from the associated reaction chamber.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, MISC teaches a unit configured to generate the aqueous salt feedstock solution provided to the chemical precipitator by removing solid contaminants from a raw salt feedstock solution (536 in Fig. 5, upstream of 524b-c recycling loops provided to 534), and at least one of a first filtering system configured to remove solid particles from the raw salt feedstock solution, and a second filtering system configured to remove one or more of metals and biologic materials from the raw salt feedstock solution (at least one of 510, 528, 530, 512 and/or 514 in Fig. 5).
While the above treatment units are not pretreatment, but rather upstream of recycling loops (See 524b-c in Fig. 5), MISC also provides motivation for feedstock pretreatment unit selected to meet design needs (“Typical source water contains many constituents that must be removed in order to achieve UPW quality. The constituents fall within four main categories: inorganics, organics, particulates, and microorganisms. Each of these constituents must be removed to the part per billion (ppb) range to meet UPW standards. The treatment train selected will vary slightly depending on the initial quantities of each in the feedwater”, [004]), such as
removing solid contaminants from a raw salt feedstock solution (“A general treatment approach includes pretreatment to remove large debris and suspended solids”, [0004])
removing solid particles from the seawater/brine (“The constituents fall within four main categories: inorganics, organics, particulates, and microorganisms. Each of these constituents must be removed to the part per billion (ppb) range to meet UPW standards”, [004]) and/or
removing one or more of metals and biologic materials from the raw salt feedstock solution (“The constituents fall within four main categories: inorganics, organics, particulates, and microorganisms. Each of these constituents must be removed to the part per billion (ppb) range to meet UPW standards”, [004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the treatment units of MISC to optimize the treatment train to meet design needs “depending on the initial quantities of each in the feedwater” ([004]), including removal of constituents within four main categories: inorganics, organics, particulates, and microorganisms. “Each of these constituents must be removed to the part per billion (ppb) range to meet UPW standards” ([0004]).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MISC, in view of McDonald, as evidenced by SCP, further in view of Wallace, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of US 2018/0099890 A, hereinafter Syal.
Regarding Claim 5, modified MISC discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. While MISC and McDonald do not positively teach the positioning of the outlet device within the reactor, MISC teaches divalent ions chemically removed (“a pH adjustment step …to enhance the silica removal”, [0089] in MISC), and McDonald teaches a region of the process chamber containing a portion of the process solution from which at least some of the ions have been chemically removed (554 in McDonald Fig.5).
However, Syal teaches the outlet device comprises a pipe mounted to the side wall of the reactor housing (left side pipe in Fig. 5) such that an inlet of the pipe is disposed inside the reaction chamber (the box interior to 104 in Fig. 5) and an outlet of the pipe is disposed outside the reactor housing (left side pipe in Fig. 5), and wherein the outlet device is configured such that the inlet is positioned within a region of the reaction chamber containing a portion of the process solution (left side pipe in Fig. 5).
Syal is analogous because Syal is in the same field of a machine and methods using electro-chemical treatments, sedimentation processes” (Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to select a pipe such as that of Syal as the outlet device in the MISC system modified by McDonald. Doing so would predictably result in an outlet capable of facilitating the removal of treated process solution containing a portion of the process solution from which at least some of the divalent ions have been chemically removed.
Regarding Claim 6, modified MISC discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. While MISC is silent on sensors, MISC provides motivation for at least one sensor disposed in the reaction chamber and configured to generate a process solution pH measurement signal indicating a pH of the process solution disposed in the reaction chamber (“a pH adjustment step …to enhance the silica removal”, [0089]) and provides motivation for a controller configured to receive the process solution pH measurement signal and to transmit at least one corresponding flow rate control signal to the at least one flow control device such that the pH of the process solution is maintained at the divalent precipitation pH level ([0089]).
However, Syal provides motivation for at least one sensor disposed in the reaction chamber and configured to generate a process solution pH measurement signal indicating a pH of the process solution disposed in the reaction chamber (“ A pH sensor may be located in the inlet 107 at point to measure the pH of the water on a continuous basis using an automated controller or a microprocessor. As per the requirement for treatment of wastewater, the dosing of acid solution or base solution may be adjusted”, [0045]); provides motivation for at least one flow control device configured to control both a first flow rate of the aqueous salt feedstock solution into the reaction chamber and a second flow rate of the base product stream into the reaction chamber (“The inlet 107 of the machine is provided with a TSS sensor and a flow meter for measuring incoming rate of suspended solids. This arrangement helps in ascertaining optimum quantity of coagulants, flocculants, and other chemicals to be pumped.”, [0052]); and a controller configured to receive the process solution pH measurement signal and to transmit at least one corresponding flow rate control signal to the at least one flow control device such that the pH of the process solution is maintained at the divalent precipitation pH level (“Further, a controller is operatively coupled to the monitoring instruments or sensors, that provides a signal representative of different parameters at a point or points in the effluent stream for determining whether the effluent stream is within an acceptable required range”, [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to incorporate sensors and controls into the modified MISC system. Doing so would facilitate “pH adjustment step …to enhance the silica removal” (MISC [0089]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MISC, in view of McDonald, as evidenced by SCP , further in view of Wallace, further in view of Syal, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of (Chemistry Libre Texts. 16.4_ The Effects of pH on Solubility - Chemistry LibreTexts 2021. Accessed 9/20/2025), hereinafter CLT.
Regarding Claim 7, modified MISC discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. While MISC is silent on plural reactors, MISC provides the following motivation: “This equipment is typically configured in a series of steps that progressively increase the purity of the water until it reaches its final quality requirements.” ([0003]).
However, McDonald suggests the chemical precipitator comprises a plurality of series connected reactors (“Additionally, a single precipitation tank 650 is shown in FIG. 6. However, the number of precipitation tanks in electrodialysis processes according to embodiments provided herein may increase as the number of electrodialysis devices increases”, [0101]), each said reactor including a reactor housing containing a portion of the process solution (554 in Fig. 5).
McDonald does not teach maintaining different target pH levels.
However, Syal suggests multiple steps (“Additional or modified process steps may be required when treating water comprising other contaminants, to contend with differing chemical properties of the contaminants. Different coagulants, flocculants, and other chemicals may
be utilized.”, [0042]) and suggests the control system is configured to maintain the process solution portion contained in each reactor at a unique target precipitation pH level such that each reactor produces a corresponding selected insoluble solid (“ A pH sensor may be located in the inlet 107 at point to measure the pH of the water on a continuous basis using an automated controller or a microprocessor. As per the requirement for treatment of wastewater, the dosing of acid solution or base solution may be adjusted”, [0045]; “several feeding points 103 for
coagulants, flocculants, and other chemicals dosing … to agglomerate any solid particles in the water”, [0047]).
Syal does not teach that each target precipitation pH level produces a corresponding different selected insoluble solid
However, CLT teaches “In solutions that contain mixtures of dissolved metal ions, the pH can be used to control the anion concentration needed to selectively precipitate the desired cation” (p 9, Summary), providing motivation for a different target divalent precipitation pH level such that each of the series connected reactors produces a corresponding different selected insoluble solid.
CLT is analogous because CLIT addresses the problem of selective precipitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to the multiple reactors suggested by McDonald to enact the selective precipitation of CLT “to contend with differing chemical properties of the contaminants” (Syal [0042]. By doing so, the modification would allow McDonald to be “configured in a series of steps that progressively increase the purity of the water until it reaches its final quality requirements” (MISC [0003]), including by use of “a pH adjustment step”, (MISC [0089]) .
Claim(s) 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MISC, in view of McDonald, as evidenced by SCP, further in view of Wallace, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of US11,629,067B1, hereinafter ECI.
Regarding Claim 8, modified MISC discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. MISC teaches the electrochemical reactor comprises:
an electrodialysis (ED) apparatus including a plurality of chambers arranged in series (Fig. 4) between an anode and a cathode (442 in Fig. 4) and a plurality of ion exchange membranes arranged such that each adjacent pair of said chambers is separated by an intervening ion exchange membrane of said plurality of ion exchange membranes (444 and/or 446 in Fig. 4); and
a system configured to direct an aqueous acid solution into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers (458 in Fig. 4 and/or 524a in Fig. 5) and to direct acid product stream away from said first chamber (at least 462 in Fig. 4), and to direct the aqueous salt/base solution into a second chamber of the plurality of chambers (456 in Fig. 4) and to direct said base product stream away from said second chamber (at least 460 in Fig. 4),
MISC suggests and provides motivation for but is silent to a flow control system configured to direct solutions into the ED apparatus (Fig. 4).
However, ECI teaches a flow control system configured to direct at least a portion of the aqueous acid solution to the acid chamber of each said cell of the ED apparatus (“the flow control system may utilize additional pumps and associated inflow/outflow lines to direct an acid stream from the acid buffering tank through the acid chambers”, Col 5 ln 16-20), and a salt/base buffer tank (121F-3 in Fig. 9).
ECI is analogous because ECI is in the same field of an ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) system that reduces atmospheric CO2 and mitigates ocean acidification by electrochemically processing feedstock solution (e.g., seawater or brine) to generate an alkalinity product that is then supplied to the ocean (ECI Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the fluid control system of ECI to maintain the fluid deliveries of MISC. Doing so would ensure efficient and accurate flow.
Regarding Claim 11, MISC teaches at least one of:
an acid buffer tank configured to contain the aqueous acid solution directed into the ED apparatus (524 a into 530 in Fig 5) and to receive a portion of the acid product stream directed away from the ED apparatus (462 in Fig. 4; 518g in Fig. 5); and
a base buffer tank operably coupled between the chemical precipitator and the ED apparatus (532 in Fig. 5) and configured to supply the aqueous base solution directed into the ED apparatus (518f in Fig. 5).
While MISC is silent on a salt/base buffer tank, MISC provides motivation for a fluid buffering system (at least 456 in Fig. 4).
However, ECI teaches a salt/base buffer tank (121F-3 in Fig. 9) and a fluid buffering system (“the BPED system includes a fluid buffering system, an electrodialysis apparatus, a flow control system and a series of flow lines (i.e., tubes, pipes or other suitable fluid conduit structures)”, Col 4 ln 62-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the fluid buffering system of ECI to maintain the fluid deliveries of MISC. Doing so would ensure efficient and accurate flow.
Regarding Claim 12, modified MISC teaches the ED apparatus comprises an ion exchange stack including a plurality of cells arranged in series between an anode and a cathode (Fig. 4), wherein each said cell includes an acid chamber and a salt/base chamber separated by an ion exchange membrane (444 in Fig. 4).
Another embodiment of MISC suggests an acid chamber and a salt/base chamber sandwiched between first and second bipolar membranes (“bipolar membrane electrodialysis device 400 …a stack comprising one or more anion exchange membrane 444 and one or more bipolar membrane 446”, [0078]).
MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) states “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to repeat the cell of Fig. 4 of MISC to predictably result in “a stack comprising one or more anion exchange membrane 444 and one or more bipolar membrane 446”, (MISC [0078]).
Regarding Claim 13, MISC teaches a base product stream (460 in Fig 4).
While MISC is silent on ocean alkalinity product, MISC teaches the system is capable of handling seawater-level salinity, suggesting MISC could be applied to seawater purification ([0043]).
However, ECI teaches a post-production subsystem configured to utilize a portion of the base product stream to generate an ocean alkalinity product (“an ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) system that reduces atmospheric CO2 and mitigates ocean acidification by electrochemically processing feedstock solution (e.g., seawater or brine) to generate an alkalinity product that is then supplied to the ocean… The base-generating device (e.g., a bipolar electrodialysis (BPED) system) generates a base substance that is then used to generate the ocean alkalinity product”, Abstract), and wherein the system is configured to supply the ocean alkalinity product to an ocean at a designated outfall location (240 in Fig. 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the bipolar electrodialysis product of MISC for OAE, as taught in ECI (Abstract; Conclusion). Doing so would add utility and value to what are essentially waste materials of MISC.
Regarding Claim 14, MISC teaches a solids processor (522a and 536 in Fig. 5).
MISC is silent on the configuration to perform applications of alkaline solids.
However, ECI teaches dissolving the insoluble solids in seawater using land-based containers and then returning the seawater to an ocean
dispersing the insoluble solids in the ocean directly (“an ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) system that reduces atmospheric CO2 and mitigates ocean acidification by electrochemically processing feedstock solution (e.g., seawater or brine) to generate an alkalinity product that is then supplied to the ocean… The base-generating device (e.g., a bipolar electrodialysis (BPED) system) generates a base substance that is then used to generate the ocean alkalinity product”, Abstract; “the generated base substance is fully dissolved in the ocean alkalinity product”, Col 3 ln 23-24, “base substance and saltwater that is released (supplied to the ocean) only after verifying that the base substance is fully dissolved in the solution, and that the mixture has an appropriate pH value.”, Col 24 ln 36-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the bipolar electrodialysis product of MISC for OAE, as taught in ECI (Abstract; Conclusion). Doing so would add utility and value to what are essentially waste materials of MISC.
Regarding Claim 17, modified MISC discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
MISC teaches the electrochemical reactor comprises:
an acid buffer tank configured to contain an aqueous acid solution (512 and 518g in Fig. 5); an electrodialysis (ED) apparatus including a plurality of cells arranged in series (Fig. 4) between electrodes (442 in Fig. 4),
wherein each said cell includes an acid chamber, an associated salt/base chamber and an ion exchange membrane configured to transmit ions between the acid chamber and the associated salt/base chamber, (Cl- ion traversing IEM 444 from base chamber to acid chamber in Fig. 4).
MISC suggests a flow control system configured to direct at least a portion of the aqueous solution to the acid chamber of each said cell of the ED apparatus (440 in Fig. 4) and to separately direct the aqueous base solution (456 in Fig. 4; and/or 518e-f and/or 524a in Fig. 5) from the chemical precipitator to the salt/base chamber of each cell of the ED apparatus (456 in Fig. 4).
MISC provides motivation for a flow control system configured to direct at least a portion of the aqueous acid solution to the acid chamber of each said cell of the ED apparatus (at least 524a in Fig 5)
However, ECI teaches a flow control system configured to direct at least a portion of the aqueous acid solution to the acid chamber of each said cell of the ED apparatus (“the flow control system may utilize additional pumps and associated inflow/outflow lines to direct an acid stream from the acid buffering tank through the acid chambers”, Col 5 ln 16-20),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the fluid control system of ECI to maintain the fluid deliveries of MISC. Doing so would ensure efficient and accurate flow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210317026 A1 and US 8834725 B2 teach multistage processes including electrochemical processes and selective precipitation at pH > 11
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ben Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights