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 Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
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(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitman (US 20020090868) in view of Wesley (US 3829368), and further in view of Lehoczky (US 6104097).
Regarding claim 1, Schmitman teaches a method for producing clean water from a contaminated water source (Schmitman [0009, 0024, and 0062]), the clean water generating device including a reaction chamber (Schmitman [0026] and claim 9); transferring water from the contaminated water source into the reaction chamber through an inlet in the clean water generating device; generating an electrolysis reaction within the reaction chamber (Schmitman [0026] and claim 9); removing gas generated by the electrolysis reaction from the reaction chamber through an outlet of the reaction chamber (Schmitman claims 3 and 5 and figure); combusting the gas generated by the electrolysis reaction (Schmitman Fig 2-5 and claim 31); and collecting clean water generated by the combustion of the gas (Schmitman Fig. 1; paragraph 37).
Although Schmitman teaches a reaction chamber for water electrolysis, Schmitman does not specifically teach an ionic solution or that the clean water generating device being configured to be at least partially submerged within the contaminated water source.
Wesley discloses a method and system for treating contaminated water under pressure while generating hydrogen gas via electrolysis (Wesley abstract), thus being analogous to Schmitman.
Wesley further teaches an electrolyte which is an ionic solution of sulfuric acid was added (Wesley Col. 4 Lns. 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wesley of adding sulfuric acid to the electrolyte to those of Schmitman to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte (Wesley Col. 4 Lns. 18-23).
Lehoczky teaches an electrolysis device for producing hydrogen and oxygen. The device is submerged in rivers or ocean (i.e., reads on at least partially submerged in the contaminated water source; see Fig. 1, column 1, lines 8-10) using a turbine to generate electric energy for supplying the electrolysis device as a cost-effective approach (Abstract; column 1, lines 37-38).
Since Schmitman teaches that electricity from renewable sources such as water drag electricity generators can be used to power the electrolysis device (see paragraph 7), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Schmitman by submerging the electrolysis device in water, as taught by Lehoczky, because it is a cost-effective, renewable source of energy for electrolyzing water.
Regarding claim 2, Schmitman further teaches that the contaminated water source comprises a naturally occurring body of water or a man-made body of water (Schmitman [0009, 0024, and 0062]).
Regarding claim 3, although Schmitman discloses desalination and removal of other pollutants such as bacterial growth which would inherently constitute molecules, Schmitman does not specifically teach the type of contaminants. Wesley further teaches the nature of the contaminants and that they can be molecular (Wesley Col. 4 Lns. 40-75). It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wesley of the type of contaminants in the water to those of Schmitman to understand the nature of the contaminants in the treated and untreated water (Wesley Col. 4 Lns. 30-40).
Regarding claim 4, Schmitman further teaches that the clean water generating device is configured to float on a surface of the contaminated water source i.e. a marine vessel (Schmitman [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Schmitman further teaches one or more osmotic membrane filters are associated with the inlet (Schmitman [0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Schmitman further teaches that the water from the contaminated water source flows through the one or more osmotic membrane filters into the reaction chamber by osmosis (Schmitman Fig. 1 and [0025]).
Regarding claim 8, although Schmitman inherently teaches electrodes by performing electrolysis of water, Schmitman does not specifically teach one or more electrodes are located within the reaction chamber, the one or more electrodes being configured to generate the electrolysis reaction.
As stated above, Wesley discloses a method and system for treating contaminated water under pressure while generating hydrogen gas via electrolysis (Wesley abstract), thus being analogous to Schmitman.
Wesley further teaches one or more electrodes are located within the reaction chamber, the one or more electrodes being configured to generate the electrolysis reaction (Wesley Col. 4 Lns. 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wesley of providing electrodes to those of Schmitman to carry out water electrolysis and contaminant removal (Wesley Col. 4 Lns. 6-9).
Regarding claim 9, Schmitman further teaches the gas removed from the reaction chamber through the outlet is transferred to a gas combustion portion (Schmitman claim 5).
Regarding claim 11, Wesley further teaches that the removal of the gas through the outlet is driven by pressure in the reaction chamber (Wesley Col. 2 Lns. 45-53 and Col. 6 Lns. 2-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wesley of pressure driven electrolysis to those of Schmitman to reduce the formation of air bubbles that can increase electrolyte resistance (Wesley Col. 6 Lns. 7-15).
Regarding claim 12, Schmitman further teaches that the gas that passes through the outlet is transferred to a gas combustion portion via one or more conduits. (Schmitman Fig.1).
Regarding claim 13, Wesley further teaches that one or more conduits are maintained at a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure (Wesley Col. 2 Lns. 45-53 and Col. 6 Lns. 37-40).
Regarding claim 15, Schmitman further teaches that combustion products from the combustion of the gas in the gas combustion portion comprise water and energy in the form of heat (Schmitman [0036] and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Schmitman further teaches that the water produced by the combustion of the gas is Collected in a clean water Collection portion (Schmitman Fig. 6 and [0044 and 0050]).
Regarding claim 17, Schmitman further teaches that the heat produced by the combustion of the gas is used to drive one or more turbines or motors (Schmitman Fig 9, [0012, 0032 and 0037).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitman (US 20020090868) in view of Wesley (US 3829368) and Lehoczky (US 6104097) as evidenced by Li et al. (“Seawater cement paste: Effects of seawater and roles of water film thickness and superplasticizer dosage.” Construction and building materials. Vol. 229. (2019)).
Schmitman further inherently teaches that the ionic solution in the reaction chamber includes soluble ionic compounds, and wherein a concentration of the soluble ionic compounds in the ionic solution is greater than a concentration of contaminants in the contaminated water source. As evidenced by Li, seawater constitutes soluble salts such as Na, K, Ca, ( Li table 2), and electrolysis requires some form of salt for it to take place, after reverse osmosis, for example. As shown in Li table 1 seawater has silica in it at 1.27 mg/L. Additionally, it has sodium at 21000 mg/L. Thus, the contaminant (silica) would be desired to be removed by the filter mechanism so as to not ruin the electrolyzer. Alternatively, other salts (Ca, Mg) have lower concentrations and thus are “contaminants” which are lower than the ionic species (sodium) of the seawater.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitman (US 20020090868) in view of Wesley (US 3829368), Lehoczky (US 6104097), and further in view of Kirchoff et al. (US 20120058405).
Regarding claim 10, Schmitman and Wesley do not teach that outlet is substantially covered by one or more gas-permeable membranes.
Kirchoff discloses a method for electrolytic production of a hydrogen gas (Kirchoff abstract), thus being analogous to both Schmitman and Wesley.
Kirchoff further teaches that the outlet is substantially covered by one or more gas-permeable membranes(Kirchoff [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kirchoff of using a gas-permeable membrane at the outlet to those of Schmitman to allow gas liquid separation (Kirchoff [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Schmitman and Wesley do not teach that the gas combustion portion comprises a sealed portion. As mentioned above, Kirchoff discloses a method for electrolytic production of a hydrogen gas (Kirchoff abstract), thus being analogous to both Schmitman and Wesley. Kirchoff further teaches that the gas combustion portion comprises a sealed portion maintained at a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure (Kirchoff [0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kirchoff of providing a seal of the container to those of Schmitman and Wesley to allow gas liquid separation (Kirchoff [0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in Remarks, filed January 6, 2026, have been fully considered. Regarding the argument that clean water is not indefinite, the examiner agrees and withdraws the 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended limitation of the device being configured to float or at least partially submerged within the contaminated water source have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Lehoczky is now relied on to teach an electrolysis device submerged in water for producing hydrogen and oxygen.
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 LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
LUAN V. VAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights