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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 NOVEMBER 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1, 5, 8-10, and 14-15
Cancelled Claims: 2-4, 6-7, and 11-13
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12 NOVEMBER 2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 4 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have had the basis for rejection modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12 NOVEMBER 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that the Nishizawa et al (US Patent Application No. 20080164217 A1) hereinafter Nishizawa and Jones et al (“SKyMine Carbon Mineralization Pilot Project”, Sept. 2010, https://doi.org/10.2172/1027801) hereinafter Jones teach seawater as a raw material and so there is no motivation to transport solid chlorine as a raw material (Arguments filed 12 NOVEMBER 2025, Page 4 to Page 5, Paragraph 2).
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that Jones teaches a land route using a train but is not relevant to the instant application due to the transportation locations (Arguments filed 12 NOVEMBER 2025, Page 5, Paragraph 3).
Applicant argues that Nishizawa in view of Eng et al (US Patent No. 3925174 A) hereinafter Eng in view of Jones does not teach the limitation of “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” (Arguments filed 12 NOVEMBER 2025, Page 5, Paragraphs 4-6).
Applicant argues that Nishizawa fails to teach the limitation of “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” because Nishizawa teaches supplying treated seawater rather than treatment agent directly back to the vessel (Arguments filed 12 NOVEMBER 2025, Page 6, Paragraphs 1-3).
Applicant argues, regarding claims 5, 8-10, and 14-15, that claim 1 is allowable and so the dependent claims 5, 8-10, and 14-15 are also allowable (Arguments filed 12 NOVEMBER 2025, Page 6, Paragraph 4).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Nishizawa teaches the use of seawater as a raw material, Eng is used as prior art to teach the use of solid salt as a raw material to create a brine at a high concentration such that a higher concentration of sodium hypochlorite can be generated during the electrolysis process. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and the reference Jones 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. New prior art has been relied upon to teach the limitations that were previously taught by Jones.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Jones does not teach “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”, 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) with an electrolytic unit (i.e., wherein the on-site treatment agent manufacturing facility is an electrolysis facility; Fig. 55, #4) which detoxifies seawater stored on the ship (Fig. 55, #100) and Eng teaches that 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). The combination of Nishizawa teaching the on-site treatment agent manufacturing facility located at the dock and the use of solid salt by Eng to enhance the treatment agent concentration of Nishizawa combines to teach the limitation “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” as the solid salt would have to be input to the on-site facility in order to enhance the treatment agent concentration.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Nishizawa does not teach “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”, Nishizawa teaches that the chlorination is applied to the ballast water and is then stored in the ballast water tank where residual chlorine is measured to precisely control the amount of chlorine added to the ballast water (Paragraphs 0070-0074). The treatment agent is clearly going to still be in effect in the ballast tank as the control scheme states that there should be residual chlorine to ensure the microbes are made extinct (Paragraphs 0075-0076). Therefore, Nishizawa teaches the supplying of treatment agent to the vessel and treating the ballast water in a combined step rather than two distinct steps, but both steps are still present in the method.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for claims 5, 8-10, and 14-15, claim 1 is not allowable and so claims 5, 8-10, and 14-15 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 Bolen (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) with an electrolytic unit (i.e., wherein the on-site treatment agent manufacturing facility is an electrolysis facility; Fig. 55, #4) 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 electrolytic unit utilizes seawater (i.e., wherein the raw material includes a chlorine compound) to produce a chlorine containing substance (Paragraph 0042) and sodium hypochlorite is the most suitable chlorine containing substance (i.e., wherein the treatment agent includes hypochlorite; Paragraphs 0017-0019).
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 to manufacture a treatment agent 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 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 do 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 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 in view of Eng in view of Bolen makes obvious the method of claim 1. 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 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 in view of Eng in view of Bolen makes obvious the method of claim 1. 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 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 to produce the hydrogen peroxide made obvious by Nishizawa in view of Eng 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 in view of Eng in view of Bolen makes obvious the method of claim 1. 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 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 to produce the hydrogen peroxide made obvious by Nishizawa in view of Eng 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 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, Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Bolen in view of Buschmann makes obvious the method of claim 8. Nishizawa in view of Eng 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 to modify the method made obvious by Nishizawa in view of Eng 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Bolen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US Patent Application No. 20160039690 A1) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 14, Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Bolen makes obvious the method of claim 1. Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Bolen does not teach wherein, in the second step, the manufactured 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, Lee teaches a tank (Fig. 4, #400) to store electrolyzed ballast water (Paragraphs 0105-0107) in which the tank is sealed (i.e., wherein, in the second step, the manufactured treatment agent is stored in an airtight repository; Paragraph 0039) and operates such that gas in the tank is sucked out when a predetermined pressure is reached (i.e., in which one selected from the group consisting of pressure; Paragraph 0055) with the purpose of preventing substances from leaking out of the tank (Paragraph 0039).
Lee is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a method for treating ballast water (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the storage of electrolyzed ballast water made obvious by Nishizawa in view of Eng in view of Bolen with the sealed apparatus as taught by Lee because the sealed apparatus would prevent substances from leaking out of the tank.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa in view of Eng 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 in view of Eng in view of Bolen makes obvious the method of claim 1. 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).
Nishizawa in view of Eng 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 to modify the method made obvious by Nishizawa in view of Eng 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
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
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772