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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 01 April 2026. Claims 1-3, 6, 11-21 and 47-50 are currently pending. Claims 4, 5, 7-10 and 22-46 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendment received 16 April 2026. The objections to the claims presented in the Office Action of 01 April 2026 are withdrawn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 47, 48, 49, 6, 11-21 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0298592 to Boal et al. (Boal) in view KR 101826102 B1 to Kim et al. (Kim) and further in view of US 2015/0144499 to Benedetto (Benedetto).
As to claims 1, 2 and 3, Boal teaches a water treatment system comprising an ultraviolet radiation oxidation process reactor (26/26’/26’’) (an actinic radiation reactor) with an inlet and an outlet, a first conduit in fluid communication with the inlet of the actinic radiation reactor for introducing water to be treated, an oxidant generator (30) for generating sodium hypochlorite with a desired concentration, the oxidant generator (30) comprising an outlet for proving fluid oxidant to a point of introduction in the first conduit upstream of the inlet of the actinic reactor (26/26’/26’’) (Paragraphs 0039-0042; Figure 1). However, Boal does not detail the specific formation of the generator for generating sodium hypochlorite at a desired concentration.
However, Kim teaches a system for generating sodium hypochlorite at a desired concentration and teaches that this system comprises an electrolytic cell (50) with an inlet and an outlet, the inlet in fluid communication with a source of electrolyte including a chlorine-containing water solution, a recirculation conduit configure to return the chlorinated effluent from the outlet of the cell to the inlet of the cell to form a recirculated brine solution, a first valve (250) disposed within the recirculation conduit, the first valve (250) having an open state in which chlorinated effluent Is recirculated through the recirculation conduit form the outlet of the cell (50) to the inlet of the cell (50), the first valve (250) configured to transition from the open state to a closed state in which the chlorinated effluent is blocked from recirculation in response to a concentration of sodium hypochlorite in the recirculated conduit reaching a predetermined level as measured in the concentration measurement unit (210), and a second conduit equipped with a second valve (240) providing selective fluid communication to the point of use (70), the second valve (240) having a closed state in which the chlorinated effluent is recirculated through the recirculation conduit from the cell outlet to the cell inlet, the second valve configured to transition from the closed sate to an open state in response to the concentration of sodium hypochlorite in the recirculated conduit reaching the predetermined level to provide the desired concentration to the point of use (70) (Paragraphs 0058-0064; Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the electrolytic sodium hypochlorite generation unit of Kim for the oxidant generator of Boal, with the point of use being the point of introduction for mixing with the water to be treated, with the expectation of effectively providing the sodium hypochlorite at the desired concentration as taught by Kim.
However, Kim is silent as to the specific configuration of the electrochemical cell. However, Benedetto also discusses electrochemical cells for electrolytic generation of sodium hypochlorite and teaches that a preferred configuration is a concentric tube electrode cell (Paragraphs 0002 and 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the electrochemical cell of Kim as a concentric tube electrode electrochemical cell with the expectation of effectively forming the cell as taught by Benedetto.
As to claim 47, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Boal further teaches that the apparatus comprises a plurality of sensors in communication with a controller for adjusting operating parameters responsive to the sensors, the sensors including a sensor (38) upstream from the actinic reactor (26/26’/26’’) and a sensor (40) downstream from the actinic reactor (26/26’/26’’) configured to measure a concentration of the contaminants in the water (Paragraph 0042; Figure 1). Kim also further teaches that the apparatus comprises a plurality of sensors including a sensor measuring the sodium hypochlorite concentration of the brine in communication with a controller for adjusting operating parameters responsive to the sensors (Paragraphs 0058-0064; Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the controller already present in Boal for the controller of the oxidant generating system in order to eliminate unnecessary duplication of components and complication.
As to claim 48, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 47. Boal further teaches that the controller is configured to adjust operating parameters responsive to a measured concertation of the contaminants (Paragraphs 0042; Figure 1).
As to claim 49, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 48, Kim further teaches that the controller is configured to regulate a rate of introduction of slat into the electrolyte responsive to the desired oxidant concentration (Paragraph 0097) the desired output concentration determined be a concentration of the contaminants of Boal.
As to claim 6, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 48. Boal further teaches that the one or more parameters include the intensity of the UV lamps (thus power applied to the radiation reactor) and flow rate through the radiation reactor (Paragraph 0042; Figure 1).
As to claim 11, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 47. Boal further teaches that the apparatus comprises a controller in communication with the sensors, the upstream and downstream sensors configured to measure a concentration of a contaminant in the water to be treat and a purity of product water exiting the actinic radiation reactor (Paragraphs 0042 and 0048; Figures 1 and 7). Kim further teaches that the one of more parameters include the concentration of sodium hypochlorite in the recirculated brine solution (Paragraphs 0058-0064).
As to claim 12, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Boal further teaches that the controller (32) is configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the system based on the signals received from the sensors, the operating parameters including, the power/dosage (intensity) applied to the radiation reactor and the flow rate of water through the radiation reactor (Paragraph 0042). Kim further teaches that the one or more parameters includes the state of the valves and the flow rate of electrolyte through the cell (Paragraphs 0058-0064 and 0097).
As to claim 13, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 12. As discussed above, Kim teaches the apparatus comprises a senor to measure the concentration of the sodium hypochlorite in the recirculated brine solution in connection with a controller to open the second valve in response to the concentration of the sodium hypochlorite being at or above the predetermined level.
As to claims 14 and 15, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 12. As discussed above, the controller of the combination is configured to set a predetermined level this predetermined level capable of being any number of user selected values includes the concentration of the contaminant in the water to be treated, a desired purity of the product water, or a desired dosage of UV radiation.
As to claims 16 and 18, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Boal further teaches that the controller is configured to set the dosage (intensity) of the UV radiation based on the concentration of the contaminant in the water or a desired purity of the product water (Paragraph 0042).
As to claim 17, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Kim further teaches that the controller is configured to set the power (current) applied to the electrochemical cell based on the concentration required, and thus based on the desired purity of the product water in the combination (Paragraphs 0007 and 0052).
As to claim 19, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Kim further teaches that the controller is configured to regulate a rate of introduction of slat into the electrolyte responsive to the desired oxidant concentration (Paragraph 0097).
As to claim 20, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Kim teaches that the amount of power and time both determine the overall end concentration of the sodium hypochlorite (Paragraphs 0077 and 0078). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize the amount of power applied to the cell (and cost associated therewith) in view of the time desired to achieve the desired concentration.
As to claim 21, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Boal further teaches that the dosage (intensity) of the UV radiation is controlled based on an amount of oxidant (Paragraphs 0042). Kim further teaches that the controller is configured to set the power (current) applied to the electrochemical cell based on the concentration required (Paragraphs 0007 and 0052).Therefore, in combination, that the UV dosage is controlled based on the power applied to the cell.
As to claim 50, the combination of Boal, Kim and Benedetto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Kim further teaches that the recirculation conduit is configured to return chlorinated effluent from the outlet of the cell (50) to a fluid connection in an electrolyte supply line (from tank (31)) configured to convey electrolyte from the source of electrolyte into the inlet of the electrochemical cell (50), the fluid connection being upstream of the inlet of the electrochemical cell (Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that in the system of Kim if a concentration of electrolytic disinfectant being produced is outside of a desired limit for a particular use the disinfectant supply valve is closed cutting off supply of the electrolytic disinfectant until the desired concentration is reached. Applicants argue that Boal is specifically directed to continuous treatment and that modification with Kim would be considered a failure of the system rendering Boal inoperable for its intended purpose. The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner maintains that there is no specific focus on continuous operation in Boal and that pausing the treatment of the waste fluid would be possible and required under any number of situations such as failure of any component, and that the apparatus would not be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose by simply having a pause in treatment in order to allow the disinfectant concentration to return to the desired concentration.
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 CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights