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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II in the reply filed on 2 March 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florman (US 2017/0291833 A1) in view of Kuiphoff et al (US 8,641,874 B2).
Florman teaches (see abstract, fig. 5, paragraphs [0003] and [0057]) a method of producing a hypochlorous acid solution from water, an acid (e.g. vinegar) and a sodium chloride solution (brine) comprising mixing a controlled amount of water, a controlled amount of acidic solution, and a controlled amount of sodium chloride (“controlled amount” is implicit in the step of “Obtaining a set of minerals and buffers produced in accordance with the set of characteristics of a local water source in the form of a packet or fixed amount from container”) followed by injecting the mixture into an electrolytic reactor configured to electrolyze the mixture into the hypochlorous acid solution.
Florman fails to teach circulating the mixture through a reaction loop through the electrolytic reactor.
Kuiphoff et al teach (see abstract), in a method for electrolytic production of hypochlorous acid, circulating the reaction mixture through a reaction loop including an electrolytic reactor until a desired concentration of the hypochlorous acid had been achieved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added a step of circulating the mixture of Florman in a reaction loop through the electrolytic reactor until a desired concentration of hypochlorous acid had been achieved as taught by Kuiphoff et al.
Claims 20-22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florman (US 2017/0291833 A1) in view of Kuiphoff et al (US 8,641,874 B2) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Buckley et al (US 2004/0060815 A1).
Florman and Kuiphoff et al fail to teach the features of claims 20 and 30.
Buckley et al comes from the same field of endeavor of electrolytic production of hypochlorous acid solutions (abstract, paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 20, Florman and Kuiphoff et al fail to teach controllably activating a pump for mixing the water, acid source and salt.
Buckley et al teach (see figs. 1 and 2, paragraph [0036]) using a pump in a controlled manner for precisely delivering ingredients into a flow of water to produce the mixture to be subjected to electrolysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used a controllably activated pump as taught by Buckley et al for mixing of the ingredients of Florman because Buckley et al teach that the controllably activated pump produced a solution of known quantity and concentration to be delivered to the electrolytic cell.
Regarding claim 21, absent a showing of unexpected results, changing the order of addition steps has been held to be prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
Regarding claim 22, Kuiphoff et al teach (see fig. 1) monitoring the pH of circulating mixture.
Regarding claim 24, Kuiphoff et al teach (see abstract) stopping the circulation when the desired concentration of hypochlorous acid was reached.
Regarding claim 25, Florman teaches (see paragraphs [0051] and [0061], and fig. 11) maintaining the pH of the produced solution at nearly neutral (pH=7) to slightly acidic (pH-=5.6) values to achieve high concentrations of hypochlorous acid.
Regarding claim 27, Florman teaches (see paragraph [0057]) that vinegar (i.e. acetic acid) was a suitable acid source.
Regarding claim 28, given the teachings of Florman that the pH was a result effective variable (see paragraphs [0051] and [0061] and fig. 11), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have performed routine experimentation to determine a suitable amount of a readily available reactant (e.g. 10% acetic acid solution) to achieve the desired pH.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Florman and Kuiphoff et al fail to teach the concentration of salt utilized in the mixture.
Buckley et al teach (see paragraph [0035]) that a saline solutions of less than 1% w/vol (less than 10 g/L) were particularly suitable for forming the hypochlorous acid by providing a substantially constant chloride concentration at a constant rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a salt concentration in the range of 10 g/L or less as suggested by Buckley et al within the process of Florman because Buckley et al teach that the low concentration of salt in the mixture was suitable for forming the hypochlorous acid by providing a substantially constant chloride concentration at a constant rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights