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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1, 5, 8-10, and 15
Cancelled Claims: 2-4, 6-7, and 11-14
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 15 APRIL 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 14 have been acknowledged.
In view of the cancellation of clam 14, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claim 14 has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified to account for the newly added limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 15 APRIL 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 1, that the Nishizawa, Eng, and Bolen do not teach the newly amended limitations including “the treatment agent is stored in an airtight repository in which one selected from the group consisting of temperature, humidity, pressure, and a combination of two or more thereof is controlled and wherein the treatment agent stored in the airtight repository is injected into a treatment agent storage tank provided at a treatment agent injection unit inside the vessel anchored at the second base”. Therefore instant claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 15 APRIL 2026, Page 4 to Page 6, Paragraph 1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and the “the treatment agent is stored in an airtight repository in which one selected from the group consisting of temperature, humidity, pressure, and a combination of two or more thereof is controlled and wherein the treatment agent stored in the airtight repository is injected into a treatment agent storage tank provided at a treatment agent injection unit inside the vessel anchored at the second base” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that at least two additional references are required to sustain the rejection of amended instant claim 1 and that five or more independent references constitutes impermissible hindsight reconstruction and fails to establish a proper obviousness analysis (Arguments filed 15 APRIL 2026, Page 6, Paragraphs 2-4).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). To provide more detail, Nishizawa teaches the general outline of an on-land electrolyzer supplying sodium hypochlorite to treat ballast water on a vessel, while also teaching that the vessel can contain its own chlorine injection unit. Eng then teaches well-known electrolysis alternatives including diaphragm electrolysis and the use of solid salt to increase the concentration of the inlet brine to the electrolyzer and thus the concentration of the resulting sodium hypochlorite. Yamamoto is only used to teach the use of a storage tank on the vessel for sodium hypochlorite storage in the generic injection unit taught by Nishizawa. Hudson Fiberglass is used to teach that it is well-known to store sodium hypochlorite in air-tight and temperature controlled tanks for safety purposes and to prevent premature decomposition of the unstable chemical. Bolen is used to teach the well-known basics of solid salt transfer for electrolysis facilities. All of these sources are required because the concepts of the instant claim 1 are fundamental to electrolysis and tend not to be located in a single source as they are too well-known in the art.
Applicant argues that Bolen is not analogous art because Bolen pertains to a statistical yearbook and is principally focused on economics and logistics of salt distribution, which does not relate to ballast water treatment or specifically port-based electrolysis facilities. Therefore, instant claim 1 is allowable because the other references do not teach the limitations that Bolen teaches and Bolen is non-analogous art (Arguments filed 15 APRIL 2026, Page 6, Paragraphs 5-7).
In response to applicant's argument that Bolen is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the instant application is directly related to the logistics of salt transfer, as instant claim 1 describes the transfer over land of solid salt as a raw material for an electrolysis process. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would consult sources, such as Bolen, describing typical salt transfer methods to supply solid salt for electrolysis when trying to solve their problem of requiring large amounts of solid salt to supply an electrolyzer.
Applicant argues that instant claim 1 is allowable and so instant claims 5, 8-10, and 15 are allowable because they depend upon instant claim 1 (Arguments filed 15 APRIL 2026, Page 7).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, instant claim 1 is not allowable and so instant claims 5, 8-10, and 15 are also not allowable.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa et al US Patent Application No. 20080164217 A1 (hereinafter Nishizawa), in view of Eng et al US Patent No. 3925174 A (hereinafter Eng), in view of Yamamoto et al US 20200130802 A1 (hereinafter Yamamoto), in view of SEO Team, “Your Guide To Safe Sodium Hypochlorite (Bleach) Storage”, Hudson Fiberglass, 02 MARCH 2020, https://hudsonfiberglass.com/your-guide-to-safe-sodium-hypochlorite-bleach-storage/ (hereinafter Hudson Fiberglass), in view of Wallace P. Bolen, "2015 Minerals Yearbook", U.S. Geological Survey Salt Statistics and Information, December 2017. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/salt-statistics-and-information (hereinafter Bolen).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishizawa teaches the treatment of untreated seawater for storage in a ballast water tank (i.e., a method of treating ballast water, comprising; Paragraph 0001)
in which the detoxification apparatus involves an on-land detoxification facility (i.e., a second base where a vessel is configured to be anchored; Fig. 55, #50)
which contains an electrolytic unit that produces sodium hypochlorite (i.e., an on-site treatment agent manufacturing facility located at the second base to manufacture a treatment agent; Paragraph 0209)
which detoxifies seawater stored on the ship (Fig. 55, #100) and in the ballast water tank (i.e., a third step of supplying the treatment agent to the vessel anchored at the second base and treating the ballast water using the treatment agent; Fig. 55, #5; Paragraphs 0352-0355)
wherein the detoxification facility has an electrolytic unit (i.e., wherein the on-site treatment agent manufacturing facility is an electrolysis facility; Fig. 55, #4)
wherein the electrolytic unit utilizes seawater (i.e., wherein the raw material includes a chlorine compound) to produce a chlorine containing substance (Paragraph 0042),
sodium hypochlorite is the most suitable chlorine containing substance (i.e., wherein the treatment agent includes hypochlorite; Paragraphs 0017-0019),
wherein the electrolytic unit contains a storage tank (Fig. 4, #43) which stores the sodium hypochlorite created from the electrolytic bath (i.e., wherein, in the second step, the treatment agent is stored in a repository; Paragraphs 0234-0235),
and, in another embodiment, that a chlorine-containing substance injection unit (Fig. 7, #30) may be used on the ship to inject a chlorine containing substance into untreated seawater before storage in the ballast water tank (i.e., wherein the treatment agent is injected into a treatment agent injection unit inside the vessel anchored at the second base; Paragraphs 0249-0250).
Nishizawa does not explicitly teach wherein a second step of inputting the raw material into an on-site treatment agent manufacturing facility located at the second base and the electrolysis facility includes a diaphragm-type electrolysis apparatus including an anode, a cathode, and a diaphragm, wherein the chlorine compound is a solid, and wherein a concentration of the hypochlorite is 1.5 to 50% by weight of the treatment agent.
However, Eng teaches the formation of hypochlorites by electrolyzing brine in a cell with an anode compartment and cathode compartment separated by a diaphragm (Abstract), solid sodium chloride is added to the liquid medium (i.e., a second step of inputting the raw material into an on-site treatment agent manufacturing facility located at the second base to manufacture a treatment agent) in the anolyte to produce a brine with as high a concentration as possible (Col. 6, Lines 11-37), and the hypochlorite concentration will normally be from 50 g/l up to the solubility limit (Col. 11, Lines 17-40) for the purpose of co-producing chloride-free caustic and a desirable byproduct of hypochlorite (Col. 3, Lines 54-62).
Eng is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the production of hypochlorites by electrolysis (Abstract) for use as a bleaching agent in a near or co-located bleaching plant (Col. 11, Lines 41-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process taught by Nishizawa with the diaphragm electrolyzer as taught by Eng because the electrolyzer would produce hypochlorite at high concentrations while also producing chloride-free caustic.
Nishizawa in view of Eng does not explicitly teach that the treatment agent is injected into a treatment agent storage tank provided at a treatment agent injection unit.
However, Yamamoto teaches a ballast water treatment device (i.e., a treatment agent injection unit) which contains a sterilizing agent holding part (Fig. 1, #30) capable of holding sodium hypochlorite aqueous solutions (i.e., the treatment agent is injected into a treatment agent storage tank provided at a treatment agent injection unit inside the vessel anchored at the second base; Paragraph 0034) which is used to contain high concentrations of chlorine based chemicals and contains a bypass pipe (Fig. 1, #12) where the injection of high concentration chlorine materials will not cause plugging or corrosion in the main ballast pipe (Paragraphs 0074-0075).
Yamamoto is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a ballast water treatment device using chlorine based chemicals to treat the ballast water (Paragraph 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process made obvious by Nishizawa in view of Eng to have the ballast water treatment device as taught by Yamamoto because the ballast water treatment device would allow high concentration sodium hypochlorite to be used in the tank without causing plugging or corrosion in the main ballast pipe.
Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto does not explicitly teach that the treatment agent is stored in an airtight repository in which one selected from the group consisting of temperature, humidity, pressure, and a combination of two or more thereof is controlled.
However, Hudson Fiberglass teaches that it is important to store sodium hypochlorite below 20 degrees Celsius and in air-tight containers (i.e., the treatment agent is stored in an airtight repository in which one selected from the group consisting of temperature is controlled) because sodium hypochlorite is reactive in nature and failing to control these factors can result in oxygen production creating pressure and spills (Page 4).
Hudson Fiberglass is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to general knowledge storage information for industrial sodium hypochlorite (Page 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the storage tanks made obvious by Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto to have storage containers with temperature control and to be air-tight as taught by Hudson Fiberglass because the temperature control and air-tight construction would prevent the sodium hypochlorite from evolving oxygen and leaking in addition to reacting with incompatible substances.
Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass does not explicitly teach a first step of transporting a raw material from a first base to a second base; wherein the first base is present on land, and wherein the first step is performed through a land route.
However, Bolen teaches that the chloralkali sector is a major consumer of salt, which is the electrolytic process of producing chlorine and bleach in co-production with sodium hydroxide (Page 63.3, Col. 2, Paragraph 4), transportation of dry salt occurs by rail or truck from domestic suppliers and is chosen based upon the economics of land shipping compared to pipelines or bulk ocean shipping (i.e., a first step of transporting a raw material from a first base to a second base; wherein the first step is performed through a land route; Page 63.5, Col. 1, Paragraph 8 to Col. 2, Paragraph 1), and that the production of salt occurs on land via rock salt mining of halite deposits, solution mining of underground halite deposits, and evaporation of purified brine feedstock (i.e., wherein the first base is present on land; Page 63.1, Col. 1, Paragraph 3 to Page 63.2, Col. 2, Paragraph 3).
Bolen is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the general use, production, transportation, and economics of salt for various industries including electrolysis (Page 63.1, Paragraphs 1-2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process made obvious by Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass with transporting solid salt by land as taught by Bolen because transporting the solid salt would be more economically viable than alternative methods.
Regarding Claim 5, Nishizawa further teaches that the ship (Fig. 55, #100) is located next to the land (Fig. 55, #101), but the ship is still in the sea (i.e., wherein the second base is a coast; Fig. 55, #102).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass in view of Bolen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Buschmann et al US Patent Application No. 20070074975 A1 (hereinafter Buschmann).
Regarding Claim 8, Nishizawa further teaches that chlorination or oxidation are both suitable for treating ballast water (Paragraph 0014) wherein the oxidizing agent can include hydrogen peroxide (Paragraph 0020). Eng further teaches that the hypochlorite concentration will normally be from 50 g/l up to the solubility limit (Col. 11, Lines 17-40) and that the cells can be incorporated into a large or small plant (i.e., wherein the electrolysis facility includes, according to the concentration of the treatment agent: a first electrolysis line configured to manufacture a treatment agent having a first concentration; Col. 11, Lines 41-51).
Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass in view of Bolen does not teach that there is a second electrolysis line configured to manufacture a treatment agent having a second concentration and the first and second concentrations are different.
However, Buschmann teaches a method of on-site hydrogen peroxide production (Abstract) in an electrolytic cell (i.e., a second electrolysis line configured to manufacture a treatment agent; Paragraph 0011) with a concentration of up to 1000 ppm of hydrogen peroxide (i.e., having a second concentration; the first and second concentrations are different; Paragraph 0015) using ballast water (Paragraph 0012) in a manner which is convenient, low-cost, environmentally gentle, and safer than alternating existing technologies (Paragraph 0015).
Buschmann is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the treatment of ballast water with hydrogen peroxide produced on site (Paragraph 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to produce the hydrogen peroxide made obvious by Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass in view of Bolen with electrolysis as taught by Buschmann because the electrolysis method is convenient, low-cost, environmentally gentle, and safer than alternating existing technologies.
Regarding Claim 10, Nishizawa further teaches that chlorination or oxidation are both suitable for treating ballast water (i.e., the types of the first and second treatment agents are different; Paragraph 0014) wherein the oxidizing agent can include hydrogen peroxide (Paragraph 0020). Eng further teaches that the cells can be incorporated into a large or small plant (i.e., wherein the electrolysis facility includes, according to a type of the treatment agent: a first electrolysis line configured to manufacture a first treatment agent; Col. 11, Lines 41-51).
Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass in view of Bolen does not teach that there is a second electrolysis line configured to manufacture a second treatment agent.
However, Buschmann teaches a method of on-site hydrogen peroxide production (Abstract) in an electrolytic cell (i.e., a second electrolysis line configured to manufacture a second treatment agent; Paragraph 0011) using ballast water (Paragraph 0012) in a manner which is convenient, low-cost, environmentally gentle, and safer than alternating existing technologies (Paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to produce the hydrogen peroxide made obvious by Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass in view of Bolen with electrolysis as taught by Buschmann because the electrolysis method is convenient, low-cost, environmentally gentle, and safer than alternating existing technologies.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass in view of Bolen in view of Buschmann as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Okamoto et al US Patent Application No. 20090127207 A1 (hereinafter Okamoto).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamamoto further teaches that the concentration of sterilization agents discharged to seas is dictated by laws (Paragraphs 0078 and 0108-110).
Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass in view of Bolen in view of Buschmann does not teach wherein the first concentration of the treatment agent and the second concentration of the treatment agent are each independently determined based on a database provided by one selected from the group consisting of the countries in which the first and second bases are located, the laws and treaties thereof, the order of a user, and a combination of two or more thereof.
However, Okamoto teaches that sodium hypochlorite addition is controlled by a redox potential measuring device (i.e., wherein the first concentration of the treatment agent; Paragraph 0027) and hydrogen peroxide is supplied and retained in the holding water tank for a prescribed time (i.e., and the second concentration of the treatment agent are each independently determined based on a database provided by one selected from the group consisting of the order of a user; Paragraph 0030) for the purpose of contacting the hydrogen peroxide with the ballast water after the chlorine addition to cause further destruction of bacteria and plankton while also reducing the residual chlorine (Paragraphs 0034-0035). Okamoto further teaches that ballast water of different countries contains different oceanic creatures and that countries can prohibit ballast water discharge if it does not meet the ballast water standards (i.e., provided by one selected from the group consisting of the countries in which the first and second bases are located), which is designated by an international treaty on the limit and control of ballast water and standards established by the International Maritime Organization (i.e., provided by one selected from the group consisting of the laws and treaties thereof and a combination of two or more thereof; Paragraphs 0002-0006).
Okamoto is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus for treating ballast water (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the method made obvious Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass in view of Bolen in view of Buschmann with the addition of hydrogen peroxide after chlorine as taught by Okamoto because the hydrogen peroxide would reduce the residual chlorine in the ballast water before discharge and would also kill more bacteria and plankton in the ballast water while ensuring that the ballast water treatment meets the established treaty standards before discharge.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass in view of Bolen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holler US Patent No. 20030209483 A1 (hereinafter Holler).
Regarding Claim 15, Nishizawa further teaches that detoxified seawater with the chlorination or oxidation agent is sent to the ship (i.e., installed in the vessel anchored at the second base in the third step; Fig. 55).
Yamamoto further teaches a ballast water treatment device (i.e., a treatment agent injection unit) which contains a sterilizing agent holding part (Fig. 1, #30) capable of holding sodium hypochlorite aqueous solutions (Paragraph 0034).
Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass in view of Bolen does not teach wherein the treatment agent is injected into a cartridge in the second step and the cartridge is installed in the vessel anchored at the second base in the third step.
However, Holler teaches a replaceable filter cartridge (i.e., a cartridge) which is chemically configured to deliver sanitizing agents in controlled doses to sanitize fluid (Abstract) where the cartridge is replaceable (Paragraph 0012) where the cartridge can be replaced for another treatment as needed (i.e., wherein the treatment agent is injected into a cartridge in the second step; Paragraph 0054). Holler further teaches that the cartridge provides for the safe transportation and handling of sanitizing agents and controlled low level dosing rates and durations (Paragraph 0059).
Holler is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a method of water treatment for dosing sanitizing agents (Paragraph 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the method made obvious by Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Yamamoto in view of Hudson Fiberglass in view of Bolen with the cartridge taught by Holler because the cartridge would provide for the safe transportation and handling of sanitizing agents and controlled low level dosing rates and durations.
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights