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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 11/03/2025. Claims 35-47, 49-60 and 62-65 are pending in the current office action. Of these, claims 52-55 and 59-60 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 48 was cancelled by applicant. Claim 35 was amended by Applicant to recite the limitations of now cancelled claim 48. Claims 49-51, and 56-58 were amended by Applicant.
Status of the Rejection
The objections to claims 56-58 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 41, 49-51, and 56-58 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim 35 is maintained, and modified only as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 36, 39-40, 42-43, 47, 49-50, and 62-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 37-38, 41, 44-46, 51-52, and 64-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New rejections are established as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 recites the limitation “the admixture has a chloride concentration of from about 250 to about 2500 mmol/L”, which is broader in scope than the limitation “the chloride concentration of the admixture being in the range of from 250 to 2500 mmol/L” recited in claim 35, from which claim 40 depends.
Claim 40 is therefore considered not to further limit claim 35, and is therefore of improper dependent form.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 35-36, 39-40, 42-43, 47, 49-50, and 62-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (KR 2013/0110428 A) as evidenced by, in the case of claim 40, Furrer et al. (ASM Handbook, Volume 22A - Fundamentals of Modeling for Metals Processing - 46. Periodic Table of Elements (pp. 585) ASM International 2009).
Regarding claim 35, Jung teaches a method for producing a hypochlorite-containing product solution with a chlorate to free available chlorine (FAC) ratio of about 0.023, a value within the claimed range, (title and see below) comprising:
contacting a flow of a chloride-containing brine (“brine of a saturated solution” para. 22 and see Fig. 3, annotated below) to an aqueous feed stream (“raw water” Id.) so as to give rise to an admixture (“dilution water” Id.),
the flow of chloride-containing brine having a flow rate (a flow necessarily has a flow rate),
the flow of chloride-containing brine having a chloride concentration (“brine storage tank (10) stores water and salt, and naturally creates and supplies brine of a saturated solution,” para. 22 and Fig. 3, see also para. 25),
the admixture having a chloride concentration (para. 25 and see Fig. 3),
the chloride concentration of the admixture being about 500 mmol/L, a value within the claimed range (“generated saturated salt water and the manufactured pure water are mixed to produce diluted water diluted to 3% by weight” para. 46 and see calculations below);
passing the admixture through a continuous electrolysis cell (para. 25, and see para. 32), the continuous electrolysis cell having an anode and a cathode disposed therein (“anode and cathode electrodes in the electrolysis tank (20)” para. 46 and Fig. 3) and separated by a fluid path such that the admixture passes between the anode and cathode so as to give rise to the hypochlorite-containing product solution (Fig. 3 shows the admixture necessarily passes at least partially between the anode and cathode, see also para. 46), the electrolysis cell being an unseparated cell (no membrane or diaphragm is recited, see also para. 2); and
modulating the flow rate of the chloride-containing brine (“The concentration of the dilution water can be controlled, for example, by installing a salt water concentration sensor (37) in the dilution water supply pipe (34) and controlling the degree of opening and closing of a valve (33a) installed in the salt water supply pipe (33) according to the measured value of the salt water concentration sensor (37).” para. 41, emphasis added, and Fig. 3) so as to produce the hypochlorite-containing product solution with a chlorate to FAC ratio of about 0.023, a value within the claimed range (“by controlling the concentration of the hypochlorite to be maintained within the above-mentioned appropriate range, the generation of by-products can be suppressed.” para. 41 and Table 1 (translated below), see also calculations below).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
1568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jung Table 1 with (machine assisted) translated table headings
PNG
media_image2.png
696
1250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Jung Fig. 3
Calculation of chloride concentration: the concentration of chloride in mmol/L was performed by dividing the weight percent of sodium chloride by the molar mass of sodium chloride i.e., about 58.44 g/mol, as evidenced by Furrer, and using a density of about 1 g/mL. (30 g/L)/(58.44 g/mol) = 0.5 mol/L, or about 500 mmol/L.
Calculation of the chlorate to FAC ratio: The chlorate to FAC ratio was calculated by dividing the chlorate concentration for the “inventive method” in Table 1 i.e., 142 mg/L, and by the reported “salt product concentration” i.e., hypochlorite concentration, in Table 1 i.e., 6296 mg/L. 142/6296 = 0.0226. Note this value is within experimental error of the value listed in the “ClO3-/Cl2” column in Table 1, and it is therefore considered the value in the “ClO3-/Cl2” column corresponds to ClO3-/FAC as defined in the instant specification.
Regarding claim 36, Jung further teaches modulating the flow rate of the chloride-containing brine so as to (ii) maintain an essentially constant current supplied within the continuous electrolysis cell (“the generated saturated salt water and the manufactured pure water are mixed to produce diluted water diluted to 3% by weight. … a constant current was supplied under the condition of a current density of 60 mA/cm2 of the anode and cathode electrodes in the electrolysis tank (20) to generate a salt solution” para. 46 and see para. 41 i.e., the flow rate of the chloride-containing brine is modulated to maintain a 3% by weight NaCl concentration in the admixture, while maintaining a constant current).
Regarding claim 39, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 35. Jung further teaches the hypochlorite-containing product solution has a chlorate to FAC ratio of 0.023, a value within the claimed range (Table 1, translated above, and see calculations of chlorate to FAC ratio in rejection of claim 35, above).
Regarding claim 40, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 35. Jung further teaches the admixture has a chloride concentration of about 500 mmol/L, a value within the claimed range (“generated saturated salt water and the manufactured pure water are mixed to produce diluted water diluted to 3% by weight” para. 46 and see calculations below).
Calculation of chloride concentration: the concentration of chloride in mmol/L was performed by dividing the weight percent of sodium chloride by the molar mass of sodium chloride i.e., about 58.44 g/mol, as evidenced by Furrer, and using a density of about 1 g/mL. (30 g/L)/(58.44 g/mol) = 0.5 mol/L, or about 500 mmol/L.
Regarding claim 42, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 35. Jung further teaches the hypochlorite is present in the hypochlorite-containing product solution at 6296 mg/L, a value within the claimed range (Table 1, translated above, see also para. 41).
Regarding claim 43, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 35. Jung further teaches the pH of the admixture is about 6 to about 8, a range fully within the claimed range (“the pH of the dilution water can be maintained within an appropriate range (6 to 8)” para. 36).
Regarding claim 47, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 35. Jung further teaches the electrolysis cell comprises a control system (“control unit (90)” Fig. 2) and one or more sensors on an inlet of the electrolysis cell (“pH Sensor (61)” Fig. 3 and para. 36, “first temperature sensor (41)” Fig. 3 and para. 34, and “salt water concentration sensor (37)” Fig. 3 and para. 41),
the control system being configured to modulate the flow rate of the chloride-containing brine in response to a signal collected by the one or more sensors (para. 41).
Regarding claim 62, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 47. Jung further teaches the electrolysis cell comprises a sensor on an inlet of the electrolysis cell (Fig. 3 shows (“pH Sensor (61)” Fig. 3 and para. 36, “first temperature sensor (41)” Fig. 3 and para. 34, and “salt water concentration sensor (37)” Fig. 3 and para. 41 are located on the feed pipe i.e., inlet, of the electrolysis cell).
Regarding claim 63, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 62. Jung further teaches he sensor on an inlet of the electrolysis cell detects the chloride concentration of the admixture fed to the electrolysis cell (“salt water concentration sensor (37)” Fig. 3 and para. 41).
Regarding claim 49, Jung teaches a method comprising:
contacting a flow of a chloride-containing brine (“brine of a saturated solution” para. 22 and see Fig. 3, annotated above) to an aqueous feed stream (“raw water” Id.) so as to form an admixture (“dilution water” Id.),
the chloride-containing brine having therein a concentration of chloride (“brine storage tank (10) stores water and salt, and naturally creates and supplies brine of a saturated solution,” para. 22 and Fig. 3, see also para. 25),
the admixture having therein a concentration of chloride (para. 25 and see Fig. 3);
the chloride concentration of the admixture being about 500 mmol/L, a value within the claimed range (“generated saturated salt water and the manufactured pure water are mixed to produce diluted water diluted to 3% by weight” para. 46 and see calculations below);
passing the admixture through a continuous electrolysis cell (para. 25, and see para. 32), the continuous electrolysis cell having an anode and a cathode disposed therein (“anode and cathode electrodes in the electrolysis tank (20)” para. 46 and Fig. 3) and separated by a fluid path such that the admixture passes between the anode and cathode (Fig. 3 shows the admixture necessarily passes at least partially between the anode and cathode, see also para. 46) so as to give rise to a hypochlorite-containing product solution (“by-product reduction type sodium hypochlorite generator” para. 44);
and identifying a characteristic of the flow of the chloride-containing brine (“The concentration of the dilution water can be controlled, for example, by installing a salt water concentration sensor (37) in the dilution water supply pipe (34) and controlling the degree of opening and closing of a valve (33a) installed in the salt water supply pipe (33) according to the measured value of the salt water concentration sensor (37).” para. 41, emphasis added, and Fig. 3) that gives rise to the hypochlorite-containing product solution having a chlorate to FAC ratio of about 0.023, a value within the claimed range (Table 1 (machine translated above), see also calculations in rejection of claim 35, above).
Calculation of chloride concentration: the concentration of chloride in mmol/L was performed by dividing the weight percent of sodium chloride by the molar mass of sodium chloride i.e., about 58.44 g/mol, as evidenced by Furrer, and using a density of about 1 g/mL. (30 g/L)/(58.44 g/mol) = 0.5 mol/L, or about 500 mmol/L.
Regarding claim 50, Jung further teaches the characteristic of the flow of the chloride-containing brine is (ii) a flowrate of the chloride-containing brine (“The concentration of the dilution water can be controlled, for example, by installing a salt water concentration sensor (37) in the dilution water supply pipe (34) and controlling the degree of opening and closing of a valve (33a) installed in the salt water supply pipe (33) according to the measured value of the salt water concentration sensor (37).” para. 41, emphasis added, and Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2013/0110428 A).
Regarding claim 44, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 43, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Jung further teaches the admixture has a pH from 6 to 8, a range overlapping the claimed range (“the pH of the dilution water can be maintained within an appropriate range (6 to 8)” para. 36). A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 37 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2013/0110428 A) in view of Coffey (US Pat. Pub. 2004/0050781 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 35, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Jung does not teach modulating a current supplied within the continuous electrolysis cell so as to maintain an essentially constant electrolysis plate-to-plate voltage within the continuous electrolysis cell.
However, Coffey teaches a method for producing hypochlorite (para. 19) using a continuous (para. 25 indicates the method is suitable for either a continuous or batch process), undivided (Coffey does not describe any membranes) electrolysis cell, wherein an essentially constant electrolysis plate-to-plate voltage is maintained by varying the current (“The controller preferably includes a constant voltage … power supply that drives a variable output current in the electrode assembly cartridge 208” para. 41).
As Jung and Coffey each teach methods for electrolytically generating hypochlorite, Jung and Coffey are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jung, by adding a step of modulating a current supplied within the continuous electrolysis cell so as to maintain an essentially constant electrolysis plate-to-plate voltage within the continuous electrolysis cell, as taught by Coffey. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Coffey teaches this is a suitable manner for controlling the amount of hypochlorite produced by an electrochemical cell. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 46, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 35, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Jung does not teach the electrolysis cell comprises an intermediate electrode.
However, Coffey teaches a method for producing hypochlorite (para. 19) using a continuous (para. 25 indicates the method is suitable for either a continuous or batch process), undivided (Coffey does not describe any membranes) electrolysis cell, wherein the electrolysis cell comprises intermediate electrodes (“stacked electrode plates 402” para. 34 and Fig. 5, Fig. 5 shows at least 5 total electrodes, or at least 3 intermediate electrodes), which improves the electrolysis capacity of the cell (para. 37).
As Jung and Coffey each teach methods for electrolytically generating hypochlorite, Jung and Coffey are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jung, such that the electrolysis cell comprises intermediate electrodes, as taught by Coffey. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the capacity of the electrolysis cell. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 38 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2013/0110428 A) in view of Buckley (US Pat. No. 6632347 B1).
Regarding claim 38, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 35, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Jung does not teach modulating a plate-to plate voltage within the continuous electrolysis cell so as to maintain an essentially constant current supplied within the continuous electrolysis cell.
However, Buckley teaches a method of producing hypochlorite (abstract and see col. 9 lines 20-26) in an electrolytic cell (title), wherein the plate-to-plate voltage is modulated to apply an essentially constant current to the cell (col. 4 line 66 through col. 5 line 9), which provides the benefit of allowing irregularities in the cell e.g., due to formation of deposits, to be detected by monitoring the voltage necessary to achieve the essentially constant current (Id.).
As Jung and Buckley each teach methods for the electrochemical synthesis of hypochlorite, Jung and Buckley are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jung, by adding a step of modulating the plate-to-plate voltage to apply an essentially constant current to the cell, as taught by Buckley. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing detection of irregularities in the cell, as taught by Buckley. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 64, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 47, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Jung further teaches the electrolysis cell comprises a sensor on an inlet of the electrolysis cell (Fig. 3 shows (“pH Sensor (61)” Fig. 3 and para. 36, “first temperature sensor (41)” Fig. 3 and para. 34, and “salt water concentration sensor (37)” Fig. 3 and para. 41 are located on the feed pipe i.e., inlet, of the electrolysis cell).
Jung does not teach the electrolysis cell comprises a sensor on an outlet of the electrolysis cell.
However, Buckley teaches a method of producing hypochlorite (abstract and see col. 9 lines 20-26) in an electrolysis cell (title), wherein a redox and pH probe are included on the outlet of the electrolysis cell, providing the predictable benefit of ensuring the product hypochlorite is in-specification (“quality control means such as redox and pH probes maybe incorporated to provide data on the output solution” col. 15 lines 21-40).
As Jung and Buckley each teach methods for the electrochemical synthesis of hypochlorite, Jung and Buckley are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jung, by adding a sensor on the outlet of the electrolysis cell, as taught by Buckley. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of ensuring the product hypochlorite is in-specification, as taught by Buckley. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 41, 51, 56, 58, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2013/0110428 A) in view of Siemer (US Pat. Pub. 2008/0017519 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 35, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Jung does not teach the continuous electrolysis cell has a plate-to-plate voltage of less than or equal to about 8 volts. Jung is silent as to the plate-to-plate voltage. A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to find a suitable voltage in the prior art.
Siemer teaches a method for producing hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate formation in a continuous, undivided electrolysis cell (abstract and Fig. 5), wherein the continuous electrolysis cell has a plate-to-plate voltage of 3.5 to 4.5 volts (para. 44), a range fully within the claimed range.
As Jung and Siemer each teach electrochemical methods for producing hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate production, Jung and Siemer are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a plate-to-plate voltage of 3.5 to 4.5 volts, a range fully within the claimed range, in the method of Jung, as taught by Siemer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this motivation because Jung is silent as to the plate-to-plate voltage, and Siemer teaches this range is suitable for forming hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate formation. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 51, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 49, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Jung does not teach the characteristic of the chloride-containing brine is a concentration of chloride in the chloride-containing brine. Jung instead teaches the characteristic of the chloride-containing brine is a flowrate of the chloride-containing brine.
However, Siemer teaches that controlling the concentration of chloride in the chloride-containing brine is a suitable alternative to controlling the flowrate of the chloride-containing brine (paras. 23-27) in a method for producing hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate formation in a continuous, undivided electrolysis cell (abstract and Fig. 5).
As Jung and Siemer each teach electrochemical methods for producing hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate production, Jung and Siemer are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jung, such that the characteristic of the chloride-containing brine is a concentration of chloride in the chloride-containing brine rather than a flowrate of the chloride-containing brine, as suggested by Siemer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Siemer teaches it is a suitable alternative to the flowrate of the chloride-containing brine as a characteristic identified to maintain a constant NaCl concentration in the feed to an electrolyzer for producing hypochlorite. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 56, modified Jung teaches the limitations of claim 51, as described above.
Jung does not teach the continuous electrolysis cell has a plate-to-plate voltage of less than or equal to about 12 volts. Jung is silent as to the plate-to-plate voltage. A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to find a suitable voltage in the prior art.
Siemer further teaches the continuous electrolysis hell has a plate-to-plate voltage of 3.5 to 4.5 volts (para. 44), a range fully within the claimed range.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a plate-to-plate voltage of 3.5 to 4.5 volts, a range fully within the claimed range, in the method of Jung, as taught by Siemer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this motivation because Jung is silent as to the plate-to-plate voltage, and Siemer teaches this range is suitable for forming hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate formation. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 58, modified Jung teaches the limitations of claim 51, as described above.
Jung further teaches the hypochlorite-containing solution is characterized by a hypochlorite concentration of about 6296 mg/L, a value within the claimed range (Table 3, translated above).
Regarding claim 65, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 35, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Jung does not teach modulating the chloride concentration of the chloride-containing brine so as to (i) maintain an essentially constant electrolysis plate-to-plate voltage within the continuous electrolysis cell, or (ii) maintain an essentially constant current supplied within the continuous electrolysis cell.
Jung instead teaches modulating the flowrate of the chloride-containing brine so as to (ii) maintain an essentially constant current supplied within the continuous electrolysis cell (paras. 41 and 46).
However, Siemer teaches that controlling the concentration of chloride in the chloride-containing brine is a suitable alternative to controlling the flowrate of the chloride-containing brine (paras. 23-27) in a method for producing hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate formation in a continuous, undivided electrolysis cell (abstract and Fig. 5).
As Jung and Siemer each teach electrochemical methods for producing hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate production, Jung and Siemer are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jung, such that the concentration of chloride in the chloride-containing brine, rather than the flowrate of the chloride-containing brine, was modulated to maintain an essentially constant current supplied within the continuous electrolysis cell, as suggested by Siemer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Siemer teaches this is a suitable alternative to modulating the flowrate of the chloride-containing brine for maintaining a constant current in an electrochemical method of forming hypochlorite. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2013/0110428 A) in view of Storey (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0186462 A1).
Regarding claim 45, Jung anticipates the limitations of claim 35, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Jung does not teach the average residence time in the electrolysis cell of from about 30 to about 600 seconds. Jung teaches a flow rate, but is silent on the average residence time in the electrolysis cell. Because Jung does not teach a residence time in the electrolysis cell, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to identify a suitable residence time in the prior art.
Storey teaches a method of electrolytically generating hypochlorite (paras. 3 and 17), wherein an average residence time in the electrolysis cell is about 540 to about 600 s, a range fully within the claimed range (“the residence time in the reactor is … preferably between about 9-10 minutes” para. 15).
As Jung and Storey each teach methods of electrolytically producing hypochlorite, Jung and Storey are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jung, such that the average residence time in the electrolysis cell is about 540 to about 600 s, a range fully within the claimed range, as taught by Storey. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Jung does not specify an average residence time, and Storey teaches this residence time is suitable for forming hypochlorite via electrolysis. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Siemer, as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Coffey (US Pat. Pub. 2004/0050781 A1).
Regarding claim 57, modified Jung teaches the limitations of claim 51, as described above.
Jung further teaches the electrolytic cell comprises an anode and a cathode (“anode and cathode electrodes in the electrolysis tank (20)” para. 46 and Fig. 3).
Modified Jung does not teach the electrolysis cell comprises one or more intermediate electrodes.
However, Coffey teaches a method for producing hypochlorite (para. 19) using a continuous (para. 25 indicates the method is suitable for either a continuous or batch process), undivided electrolysis cell (Coffey does not describe any membranes), wherein the electrolysis cell comprises at least three, a value within the claimed range, intermediate electrodes (“stacked electrode plates 402” para. 34 and Fig. 5, Fig. 5 shows at least 5 total electrodes, or at least 3 intermediate electrodes), which improves the capacity of the cell (para. 37).
As Coffey teaches a method for electrolytically generating hypochlorite, Coffey is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jung, such that the electrolysis cell comprises one or more intermediate electrodes, as taught by Coffey. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the capacity of the electrolysis cell. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 8, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the objections to claims 56-58 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 56-58 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 8, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 41, 49-51, and 56-58 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 41, 49-51, and 56-58 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 8-15, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims over the prior art have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 8-15 that Jung does not teach the limitation “the chloride concentration of the admixture being in the range of from 250 to 2500 mmol/L” as previously recited in claim 48 and now recited in amended claims 35 and 49. Specifically, Applicant argues that Jung teaches the concentration of chloride is 4000 to 8000 ppm in para. 41.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the current rejections of claims 35, 40, and 49, and the previous rejection of claim 48 (see Office action dated 08/01/2025 p. 10), Jung explicitly teaches a chloride concentration of 3% by weight, which is equivalent to a concentration of about 500 mmol/L (in particular, see Fig. 3, which clearly labels the feed to the electrolyzer as “3% NaCl”).
While Applicant points to para. 41 as providing support for a chloride concentration in the admixture of 4000 to 8000 ppm, as previously (and currently) noted in the rejection of e.g., claims 35, 36, and 42, para. 41 of Jung describes the concentration of sodium hypochlorite produced by the electrolyzer, not the concentration of sodium chloride fed to the electrolyzer.
It appears the translation Applicant is using is flawed (it will be noted that the translation used by Applicant is not that provided by the Office). Specifically, the emphasized portions of text in Applicant’s Remarks on p. 10 correspond to the following passages and translations in the original document:
“또한, 상기 전기분해조(20)에는 차염의 농도를 측정하기 위한 농도센서(80)가 더 설치된다” which translates to “Furthermore, the electrolytic cell (20) is further equipped with a concentration sensor (80) for measuring the concentration of hypochlorite.”; and
“여기서 바람직하게는 상기 생성되는 차염 농도의 적정범위는 4,000~8,000ppm인 것이 좋고, 더욱 바람직하 게는 5,000~6,500ppm인 것이 좋다.” which translates to “Preferably, the optimal range for the hypochlorite concentration produced is 4,000 to 8,000 ppm, and more preferably, 5,000 to 6,500 ppm.”
As the factual basis for Applicant’s argument is incorrect, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795