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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-12, in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 13-4, 16-19, and 22-26 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokota et al (PG-PUB US 2016/0200573, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yokota et al disclose an electrolysis system (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a fluid supply line (i.e., a fluid manifold, Figure 1, paragraph [0013] –[0015]);
(2) a plurality of electrolytic cells 1a-1d coupled to the fluid supply line, wherein each of the electrolytic cell is individually connected and/or disconnected from the system through the respective valves 2/3 and switches 4 for controlling on/off operation status (i.e., a plurality of electrolytic cells… are independently switchable between an on state and an off state, Figure 1, paragraphs [0016] – [0017]).
Yokota teaches that the electrolytic cell can be used to generate ozone (paragraph [0003]).
Moreover, the limitation of “for use in the production of ozone” is recited in preamble. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claim 2, Yokota teaches that the electrolytic cells are connected in parallel (Figure 1, paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 4, Yokota teaches that each of the electrolytic cell is coupled to the respective fluid conduit branched from the fluid supply line (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Yokota teaches that each of the electrolytic cell is electrically connected to the respective switch 4 for controlling the on/off operation status (Figure 1, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 8, Yokota teaches that each of the electrolytic cell may be made the same in design, shape, and materials (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Yokota teaches that a tank/vessel is connected to the fluid supply line (Figure 1, paragraph [0016]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et al (PG-PUB US 2016/0200573, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Themy et al (PG-PUB US 2012/0273367, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 9. Yokota does not each of the electrolytic cell connected to a respective power source. However, Themy et al disclose an electrolysis system (ABSTRACT). Themy teaches that the apparatus comprises a plurality of electrolytic cells linked in parallel, wherein each of the electrolytic cell is connected to a respective power source for independently adjusting input voltage and current (Figure 1B, paragraphs [0038] –[0039]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a power source for each of the electrolytic cell as suggested by Themy in order to independently adjust voltage and current of the respective electrolytic cell within the device of Yokota.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et al (PG-PUB US 2016/0200573, cited in IDS) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Bahar et al (PG-PUB US 2017/0370013).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Yokota teaches that the electrolysis may be used to generate ozone and a tank 21 is provided for supply fluid (Figure 1, paragraphs [0003] & [0016]), but does not teach a vent with the tank or an ozone sensor in a flow cell. However, Bahar et al disclose an electrolysis system (ABSTRACT). Bahar teaches that the electrolysis system can be used to generate ozone and a gaseous exhaust 334 is provided for venting ozone through an ozone depletion catalyst and an ozone sensor 310 is provided for monitoring ozone concentration within an enclosure 50 (Figure 32, paragraph [0115]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an exhaust port and an ozone sensor in an enclosure as suggested by Bahar in order to vent the generated gas and monitor generated ozone concentration when the device of Yokota being used for generating ozone.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-12 are rejected, Claims 13-4, 16-19, and 22-26 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795