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 Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on
11/18/2025.
Status of Rejections
The rejections of claims 3, 4, 7 and 9 are obviated by the Applicant’s cancellations.
All other previous rejections are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2: The claim is drawn to only method steps of how the device separates the hypochlorous acid and is not considered structurally limiting because it does not contain any structural components of the device or system.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwabuki et al (JP2019043785A, cited in previous action) in view of Lumetta (US 9546427 B2, cited in previous action). Puretech (Reverse Osmosis – The Basics, 2024) cited as an evidentiary reference for claim 1.
Claim 1: Iwabuki discloses a separation device or system (see e.g. page 6, paragraph starting with “In the production method”) comprising a separation membrane (see e.g. page 6, paragraph starting with “In the production method”) capable of separating impurity ions other than hypochlorous acid from an aqueous solution containing hypochlorous acid as a main component (see e.g. page 6, paragraph starting with “In the production method”);
wherein the membrane is a separation membrane with a predetermined pore size capable of controlling a degree of separation (see e.g. page 6, paragraph starting with “In the present”).
With regard to the limitations claiming that the membrane is a RO membrane with a predetermined pore size as the separation membrane. The instant specification does not provide a definition or guidelines for what is considered to be a reverse osmosis membrane. Therefore, an art understood definition will be used for claim interpretation. Puretec defines RO membranes as a semi-permeable membrane that allows the passage of water but not salts when pressure is applied (see e.g. page 3). Iwabuki teaches that the membrane is semi-permeable (see e.g. abstract) and is designed to allow the passage of the water (hypochlorous solution, see e.g. page 4, paragraph starting with “The above-mentioned”) while rejecting the passage of salts (see e.g. page 6, paragraph starting with “In the production“: “it is possible to obtain a highly clean hypochlorous acid”). Therefore, the membrane of Iwabuki is considered to be a reverse osmosis membrane.
Iwabuki does not explicitly teach that the aqueous solution containing hypochlorous acid is an electrolysis water and instead discloses a method of purifying an already formed solution of hypochlorous acid (see e.g. abstract). Iwabuki acknowledges a method of forming hypochlorous acid using electrolysis but states that these processes have increased costs (see e.g. page 3, paragraph starting with “On the”). However, this is not considered as teaching away from using hypochlorous acid is an electrolysis water because the method of Iwabuki is specifically regarding a cheap means of purifying hypochlorous acid (see e.g. connecting paragraph of pages 3 and 4) and requires some form of stock hypochlorous acid that is purified. Lumetta discloses a system for generating hypochlorous acid is an electrolysis water (see e.g. abstract and col 9, lines 59-67) and is capable of producing on-demand hypochlorous acid cheaply and in high concentrations (see e.g. col 2, lines 63-col 3, lines 8). Unlike the issues outlined in Iwabuki, the method of Lumetta explicitly states the hypochlorous acid is produced cheaply. Additionally, the method of Lumetta does not include a purifying step for the hypochlorous acid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the system of Iwabuki so that the aqueous solution containing hypochlorous acid is an electrolysis water as taught in Lumetta because the hypochlorous acid formed in Lumetta can be generated on-demand cheaply and in high concentrations and would benefit from the purifying process of Iwabuki.
Claim 2: Iwabuki in view of Lumetta teaches all the structure recited in claim 1 and thus renders this claim obvious. See the claim interpretation section above for information on how this claim was interpreted.
Claim 5: Iwabuki in view of Lumetta teaches that the membrane is at least a macromolecular polymer (see e.g. Iwabuki - page 5, paragraph starting with “The polymer membrane”).
Claim 6: Iwabuki in view of Lumetta teaches that the macromolecular polymer is at least polyethylene (PTFE, see e.g. Iwabuki - page 5, paragraph starting with “The polymer membrane”).
Claim 10: Iwabuki discloses a separation device or system (see e.g. page 6, paragraph starting with “In the production method”) comprising a separation membrane (see e.g. page 6, paragraph starting with “In the production method”) capable of separating impurity ions other than hypochlorous acid from an aqueous solution containing hypochlorous acid as a main component (see e.g. page 6, paragraph starting with “In the production method”);
wherein a material of the membrane comprises a macromolecular monomer polyethylene (PTFE, see e.g. page 5, paragraph starting with “The polymer membrane”).
With regard to the limitations claiming that the membrane is a RO membrane with a predetermined pore size as the separation membrane. The instant specification does not provide a definition or guidelines for what is considered to be a reverse osmosis membrane. Therefore, an art understood definition will be used for claim interpretation. Puretec defines RO membranes as a semi-permeable membrane that allows the passage of water but not salts when pressure is applied (see e.g. page 3). Iwabuki teaches that the membrane is semi-permeable (see e.g. abstract) and is designed to allow the passage of the water (hypochlorous solution, see e.g. page 4, paragraph starting with “The above-mentioned”) while rejecting the passage of salts (see e.g. page 6, paragraph starting with “In the production“: “it is possible to obtain a highly clean hypochlorous acid”). Therefore, the membrane of Iwabuki is considered to be a reverse osmosis membrane.
Iwabuki does not explicitly teach that the aqueous solution containing hypochlorous acid is an electrolysis water and instead discloses a method of purifying an already formed solution of hypochlorous acid (see e.g. abstract). Iwabuki acknowledges a method of forming hypochlorous acid using electrolysis but states that these processes have increased costs (see e.g. page 3, paragraph starting with “On the”). However, this is not considered as teaching away from using hypochlorous acid is an electrolysis water because the method of Iwabuki is specifically regarding a cheap means of purifying hypochlorous acid (see e.g. connecting paragraph of pages 3 and 4) and requires some form of stock hypochlorous acid that is purified. Lumetta discloses a system for generating hypochlorous acid is an electrolysis water (see e.g. abstract and col 9, lines 59-67) and is capable of producing on-demand hypochlorous acid cheaply and in high concentrations (see e.g. col 2, lines 63-col 3, lines 8). Unlike the issues outlined in Iwabuki, the method of Lumetta explicitly states the hypochlorous acid is produced cheaply. Additionally, the method of Lumetta does not include a purifying step for the hypochlorous acid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the system of Iwabuki so that the aqueous solution containing hypochlorous acid is an electrolysis water as taught in Lumetta because the hypochlorous acid formed in Lumetta can be generated on-demand cheaply and in high concentrations and would benefit from the purifying process of Iwabuki.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 8 and 11: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative
limitations of the claim(s) with special attention given to the limitation claiming “an electric field or a magnetic field is utilized as an aid in separating impurity ions other than hypochlorous acid from the aqueous solution containing hypochlorous acid”. The closest prior art is Iwabuki and Lumetta.
Iwabuki explicitly discusses that their separation method does not require any electrical input to reduce costs (see e.g. connecting paragraph of pages 3 and 4: “The present invention has been made to solve the above-mentioned problems, and low-cost, easy, energy-free, low-contaminant hypochlorous acid”). Therefore, there would be no teaching nor motivation that make modifying Iwabuki to teach this limitation obvious.
Lumetta teaches a method including the steps of utilizing an electrical field to aid in separating impurity ions other than hypochlorous acid from the aqueous solution containing hypochlorous acid (see e.g. col 3, lines 47-67). However, the membrane of Lumetta does read on a RO membrane because it is designed to allow the passage of ions but not water (see e.g. col 5, lines 21-27). Therefore, there would be no teaching nor motivation that make modifying Iwabuki to teach this limitation obvious because the RO membrane could not function in their apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/18/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC § 112(b) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Iwabuki in view of Lumetta.
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 W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights