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 07/07/2026. Claims 35-41, 43-47, 49-60 and 62-66 are pending in the current office action. Of these, claims 52-55 and 59-60 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 35, 39, 49, and 58 were amended by Applicant. Claim 66 is a new claim.
Status of the Rejection
The rejections of claims 35-41, 43-47, and 62-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 35-41, 43-47, and 62-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.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 Objections
Claim 66 is objected to because of the following informalities:
New claim 66 has been incorrectly numbered as “65”;
Claim 66 line 2 reads “having”, but should read “has” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 39, claim 39 recites the limitation “a signal …”, however claim 47, from which claim 39 depends, already recites “a signal”. It is therefore unclear whether claim 39 is intended to require an additional signal, or to further limit the signal recited in claim 47.
Claim 39 is therefore indefinite.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a claim previously set forth.
Regarding claim 39, as currently drafted claim 39 depends from claim 47 i.e., a claim subsequently, rather than previously, set forth. Claim 39 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 § 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.
Claims 35-36, 39-40, 43-44, 47, 49-50, and 62-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2013/0110428 A) in view of Neodo et al. (“On the electrolysis of dilute chloride solutions: Influence of the electrode material on Faradaic efficiency for active chlorine, chlorate and perchlorate” Electrochimica Acta 80 (2012) 282– 291) and as evidenced by 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 (title) 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),
wherein 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);
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 having a hypochlorite concentration of from about 4000 mg/L to about 8000 mg/L (“the generated salt concentration is 4,000 to 8,000 ppm” para. 41 and see below), a range overlapping the claimed range.
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
Regarding the limitation “the hypochlorite-containing product solution having a hypochlorite concentration of from about 4000 mg/L to about 8000 mg/L”, as previously noted in the Office action mailed 12/12/2025, the relevant portion of Jung recites “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.”
Jung does not teach the hypochlorite-containing product solution has a chlorate to free available chlorine (FAC) ratio of up to about 0.015.
Jung instead teaches the hypochlorite-containing product solution has a chlorate to free available chlorine (FAC) ratio of about 0.023 (Table 1 and see below).
However, Jung further teaches that chlorate is an undesired by-product (“by-products of chlorate or bromate, which are legally regulated carcinogens,” para. 7), and the ratio of chlorate to FAC can be modified by adjusting the “quality of the influent (softened water), purity of salt, influent and reaction temperature, pH, concentration of formed hypochlorite, current density supplied to the electrolytic cell, storage period of hypochlorite, etc.” (Id.).
Furthermore, Neodo teaches the FAC to chlorate ratio of a chloride electrolysis method (abstract) may be reduced by increasing the temperature (e.g., Fig. 4) and using Ti/RuO2.2SnO2 in place of Ti/Pt as the electrocatalyst (abstract and compare Figs. 3 and 7).
Jung teaches the electrocatalyst is Ti/Pt (“an insoluble electrode coated with a platinum-based oxide catalyst using titanium (Ti) as a base material” para. 25).
As Jung and Neodo each teach methods for generating hypochlorite solutions via electrolysis, Jung and Neodo 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 hypochlorite-containing product solution has a chlorate to free available chlorine (FAC) ratio of up to about 0.015 by e.g., using a Ti/RuO2.2SnO2 electrocatalyst and/or adjusting the temperature, as taught by Neodo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Jung teaches chlorate is an undesired by-product, and Neodo teaches adjusting the temperature and/or using a Ti/RuO2.2SnO2 electrocatalyst reduces the amount of chlorate produced during the electrolytic production of hypochlorite from brine.
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.
A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)). A value in the prior art close to a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
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 the same as the value listed in the “ClO3-/Cl2” column in Table 1 after rounding to 3 decimal places, and it is therefore considered the value in the “ClO3-/Cl2” column corresponds to ClO3-/FAC as defined in the instant specification.
Calculation of the hypochlorite concentration: Values in ppm i.e., mg hypochlorite per kg water, were converted to mg/L by multiplying by the density of water i.e., about 1 kg/L.
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 40, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 35 obvious, as described above. 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 above).
Regarding claim 43, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 35 obvious, as described above. 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 44, 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).
Regarding claim 47, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 35 obvious, as described above. 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 39, Jung further teaches the signal relates to a level of chlorate of the hypochlorite-containing product solution (see below).
Jung teaches the amount of chlorate in the hypochlorite-containing product solution depends on the inlet temperature, brine concentration, pH, and system temperature (para. 7). Therefore, as Jung teaches the signal is at least one of these values, the signal of Jung relates to a level of chlorate of the hypochlorite-containing product solution.
Regarding claim 62, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 47 obvious, as described above. 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 further teaches the 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 hypochlorite concentration of from about 4000 mg/L to about 8000 mg/L (“the generated salt concentration is 4,000 to 8,000 ppm” para. 41 and see rejection of claim 35, above), a range overlapping the claimed range.
A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Jung does not teach the identified characteristic flow gives rise to the hypochlorite-containing product solution having a chlorate to FAC ratio of up to about 0.015.
Jung instead teaches the identified characteristic flow gives rise to the hypochlorite-containing product solution having a chlorate to FAC ratio of about 0.023 (Table 1 and see calculations in claim 35, above).
However, Jung further teaches that chlorate is an undesired by-product (“by-products of chlorate or bromate, which are legally regulated carcinogens,” para. 7), and the ratio of chlorate to FAC can be modified by adjusting the “quality of the influent (softened water), purity of salt, influent and reaction temperature, pH, concentration of formed hypochlorite, current density supplied to the electrolytic cell, storage period of hypochlorite, etc.” (para. 7).
Furthermore, Neodo teaches the FAC to chlorate ratio of a chloride electrolysis method (abstract) may be reduced by increasing the temperature (e.g., Fig. 4) and using Ti/RuO2.2SnO2 in place of Ti/Pt as the electrocatalyst (abstract and compare Figs. 3 and 7).
Jung teaches the electrocatalyst is Ti/Pt (“an insoluble electrode coated with a platinum-based oxide catalyst using titanium (Ti) as a base material” para. 25).
As Jung and Neodo each teach methods for generating hypochlorite solutions via electrolysis, Jung and Neodo 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 identified characteristic flow gives rise to the hypochlorite-containing product solution having a chlorate to FAC ratio of up to about 0.015 by e.g., using a Ti/RuO2.2SnO2 electrocatalyst and/or adjusting the temperature, as taught by Neodo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Jung teaches chlorate is an undesired by-product, and Neodo teaches adjusting the temperature and/or using a Ti/RuO2.2SnO2 electrocatalyst reduces the amount of chlorate produced during the electrolytic production of hypochlorite from brine.
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).
Claims 37 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Neodo, as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Coffey (US Pat. Pub. 2004/0050781 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Jung renders the limitations of claim 35 obvious, as described above.
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) in 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 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 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, 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, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 35 obvious, as described above.
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 electrolysis cell (Coffey does not describe any membranes), 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 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 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 in view of Neodo, as applied to claims 35 or 47 above, and further in view of Buckley (US Pat. No. 6632347 B1).
Regarding claim 38, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 35 obvious, as described above.
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 Buckley teaches a method for the electrochemical synthesis of hypochlorite, Buckley 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, 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, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 47 obvious, as described above.
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 Buckley teaches a method for the electrochemical synthesis of hypochlorite, Buckley 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, 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, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Neodo, as applied to claims 35 or 49 above, and further in view of Siemer (US Pat. Pub. 2008/0017519 A1).
Regarding claim 41, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 35 obvious, as described above.
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 Siemer teaches an electrochemical method for producing hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate production, Siemer 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 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, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 49 obvious, as described above.
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 Siemer teaches an electrochemical method for producing hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate production, Siemer 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 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 renders the limitations of claim 51 obvious, as described above.
Jung does not teach the continuous electrolysis cell operates at 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.
However, 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 65, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 35 obvious, as described above.
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 Siemer teaches an electrochemical method for producing hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate production, Siemer 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 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 in view of Neodo, as applied to claim 35 above, in view of Storey (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0186462 A1).
Regarding claim 45, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 35 obvious, as described above.
Jung does not teach the admixture has an average residence time in the electrolysis cell of from about 30 to about 600 seconds. Jung 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 seconds, a range fully within the claimed range (“the residence time in the reactor is … preferably between about 9-10 minutes” para. 15).
As Storey teaches a method of electrolytically producing hypochlorite, Storey 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 average residence time of the admixture in the electrolysis cell is about 540 to about 600 seconds, 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 Neodo and Siemer, as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Coffey (US Pat. Pub. 2004/0050781 A1).
Regarding claim 57, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 51 obvious, 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)).
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Neodo, as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Choi (KR 101510455 B1).
Regarding claim 58, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 49 obvious, as described above.
Jung does not explicitly teach a step of monitoring a chlorate level of the hypochlorite-containing product solution.
However, Choi teaches a method of electrolytically producing hypochlorite while minimizing the production of chlorate (abstract), wherein the concentration of chlorate is monitored and used control the flow rate to the electrolytic cell thereby optimizing the product concentrations (“electrolytic water circulation apparatus further includes a first automatic valve and a second automatic valve, and the ratio of the circulating flow rate and the bypass flow rate is controlled by controlling the respective automatic valve opening rates, The concentration of sodium chlorate and the amount of disinfection by-products are measured to calculate the optimum circulation flow rate.” p. 5 para. 10, highlighted in supplied copy).
As Choi teaches a method of electrolytically producing hypochlorite while minimizing chlorate production, Choi 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 concentration of chlorate in the product is measured, as taught by Choi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the flow rate to be adjusted based on the amount of chlorate produced, thereby optimizing the product concentrations, as taught by Choi. 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 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Neodo, as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Pyo (KR 20110109398 A).
Regarding claim 66, modified Jung renders the limitations of claim 35 obvious, as described above.
Jung does not teach the hypochlorite-containing product solution has a hypochlorite concentration of from about 8500 mg/L to about 10000 mg/L.
Jung instead teaches the hypochlorite-containing product solution has a hypochlorite concentration of 4000 to 8000 mg/L, a range approaching the claimed range. As noted by Applicant, Jung indicates concentrations above 8000 mg/L lead to higher levels of chlorate production (see Remarks, filed 07/07/2026, p.11).
However, Pyo teaches a method for electrolytically generating hypochlorite while minimizing the production of chlorate (abstract), wherein the hypochlorite-containing product solution has an effective chlorine concentration i.e., FAC, of between 7000-9200 mg/L (Table 1, translated below, and para. 111), a range overlapping the claimed range,1 while maintaining a minimum amount of chlorate produced (“the amount of harmful substances such as chlorate and bromate is suppressed to the maximum extent,” para. bridging p. 39-40) by controlling the temperature of the electrolyzer to about 28 °C (“by maintaining the temperature of the diluted brine introduced into the electrolysis cell at an appropriate level and by directly removing the heat generated during the electrolysis of the diluted brine through a water-cooled heat exchanger …” para. bridging p. 39-40, para. 89, and see Table 1).
As Pyo teaches a method for electrolytically generating hypochlorite while minimizing the production of chlorate, Pyo 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 concentration of hypochlorite in the hypochlorite-containing product solution is between 7000 and 9200 mg/L, as taught by Pyo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of increasing the hypochlorite concentration while maintaining a low chlorate concentration, as taught by Pyo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making this modification because Pyo teaches that controlling the temperature of the reactant feed and electrochemical reactor allows higher concentrations of hypochlorite to be formed without a corresponding increase in the chlorate concentration. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
PNG
media_image3.png
730
785
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pyo Fig. 1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 8, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 35-41, 43-47, and 62-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 35-41, 43-47, and 62-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 8, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 39 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 39 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 8-11, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 35-41, 43-47, 49-60 and 62-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 35-41, 43-47, 49-60 and 62-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 8-9 that Jung does not reasonably render a chlorate to FAC ratio of up to about 0.015 obvious.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Jung reports a single chlorate to FAC ratio of 0.023, a value 50% greater than the upper bound of the claimed range, and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore have had no reasonable expectation that values of 0.015 or lower could be successfully reached.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the chlorate to FAC ratio reported in Jung could be improved upon to yield values in the claimed range.
In order for a claim to be rendered prima facie obvious over the prior art, a person having ordinary skill in the art must have had a reasonable expectation of success that the prior art could be modified to read on the claim before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (MPEP § 2143.02).
As noted by Applicant, Jung reports only one chlorate to FAC ratio for their experimental method i.e., 0.023.2 However, Jung further teaches that the chlorate to FAC ratio in the produced hypochlorite solution is a product of a number of different variables (para. 7), and does not make any explicit assertion that the particular value taught could not be further improved.
Furthermore, as taught by Neodo (and implied by Pyo), the ratio of chlorate to FAC can be reduced by up to about 80%3 by raising the temperature of the electrolyzer from 10 °C to 25 °C or higher (Fig. 4), and the ratio of chlorate to FAC is dramatically lowered when using a Ti/Ru.2SnO2 as a catalyst (Fig. 6) rather than Ti/Pt (Fig. 10). The method of Jung explicitly controls the temperature of the feed and electrolyzer to 15 °C (paras. 45-46) and uses Ti/Pt as the catalyst (para. 25).
It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably expected raising the temperature of the feed and electrolyzer and/or using Ti/Ru.2SnO2 as the catalyst would result in a lower chlorate to FAC ratio, based on the explicit teachings of Neodo, and that such a change would be expected to result in a reduction of at least about 35%, as required by the claim4.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument #2
Applicant argues on p. 11 that the new limitation “wherein a signal relates to a level of chlorate of the hypochlorite-containing product solution”, as recited in claim 39 and required by claim 58, is not reasonably disclosed or rendered obvious by Jung, alone or in combination with the previously cited references.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection of claim 39, above, Jung teaches the signal collected by the one or more sensors is the inlet temperature, brine concentration, pH, and system temperature, each of which are recognized by Jung (and Applicant) as being related to the level of chlorate produced.
Therefore, Jung clearly reads on the limitation “wherein a signal relates to a level of chlorate of the hypochlorite-containing product solution”.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues on p. 11 that the cumulative limitations of new claim 66 cannot reasonably be rendered obvious by Jung, alone or in combination.
Specifically, Applicant argues that because Jung discloses that hypochlorite concentrations above 8000 ppm lead to undesirably high concentrations of chlorate, Jung teaches away from the combined limitations “a chlorate to free available chlorine (FAC) ratio of up to about 0.015” (claim 35) and “the hypochlorite-containing product solution having a hypochlorite concentration of from about 8,500 mg/L to about 10,000 mg/L” (claim 66).
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges that, in order for a limitation to be rendered prima facie obvious, the prior art, taken as a whole, must not teach away from the proposed limitation (MPEP § 2143.01).
In the instant case, as noted by Applicant, Jung indicates that it is disadvantageous to increase the hypochlorite concentration above 8000 ppm, because this results in an increased chlorate concentration or increased chlorate to FAC ratio.
However, Pyo indicates that, by maintaining the feed and reactor temperatures at about 27 °C, the hypochlorite concentration (reported as a FAC value) can be raised up to 9200 ppm while maintaining a suitable chlorate to FAC ratio. This is further supported by Neodo’s teaching of reduced chlorate to FAC ratios at higher temperatures.
It is therefore considered that, taken as a whole, the prior art does not teach away from the use of hypochlorite concentrations above 8000 ppm when low chlorate to FAC ratios are desired.
Applicant’s argument is therefore 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
1 As noted by Applicant, FAC includes molecular Cl2 in addition to hypochlorite (specification para. 40). In the instant case, as Pyo does not teach the solution comprises molecular Cl2, it is considered the FAC is essentially equivalent to the concentration of hypochlorite.
2 Jung also reports a chlorate to FAC value of 0.047 for a comparative method.
3 Comparing the reported ratios for 10 °C and 25 °C at time = 150 min.
4 The maximum claimed value of 0.015 is about 35% less than the value taught by Jung.
Prosecution Insights