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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/958543, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for one or more claims of this application.
Specifically, claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the voltage across the electrolytic cell is constant”, but no support for this limitation could be found in the written description as originally filed on 06/26/2020 in Application No. 16/958543 (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), below). Claim 8 is therefore not entitled to the priority date of the parent application under 35 U.S.C. § 120.
Specification
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: the limitation “wherein the voltage across the electrolytic cell is constant” in claim 8 (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), below).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7 has the word “and” underlined, underlines should be reserved for indicating the addition of new language to the claims;
Claim 9 line 1 recites “comprising”, but should recite “comprising:” for grammatical correctness;
Claim 9 line 9 has the word “and” underlined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement on the grounds of new matter. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the voltage across the electrolytic cell is constant”. Support for this limitation could not be identified in the disclosure as originally filed on 06/26/2020 in the parent application (Application No. 16/958543). Specifically, the only reference to a constant voltage identified in the claims or specification as filed on 06/26/2020 is a description of a prior art system i.e., Sanchez (US Pat. No. 7922890), in para 11, where the system is described as “The voltage on the system is fixed.” and “the amperage is maintained with the flow and applied voltage constant,”. As this description is of a prior art system, rather than the instant invention, it cannot provide support for such a feature in the instant invention.
The limitation “wherein the voltage across the electrolytic cell is constant” is therefore considered new matter not present in the disclosure as originally filed. Claim 8 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement on the grounds of inclusion of new matter not present in the disclosure as originally filed.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salathe (US Pat. Pub. 2009/0008268 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Salathe teaches an apparatus for the production of disinfectant (title), comprising:
(a) an electrolyte pump having an input port in fluid communication with a source of electrolyte and an output port (“A not shown, controllable pump integrated into reactor 6 is used for the controllable delivery of dilute water/electrolytic solution through the electrolytic reactor.” para. 65);
(b) an electrolytic cell (“electrolytic reactor 6” Id.) having an input port in fluid communication with the output port of the electrolyte pump such that the flow rate of electrolyte into the electrolytic cell is determined by the flow rate of the electrolyte pump (“the pump controlling the volume flow and therefore the residence time of the water/electrolytic solution in reactor 6” Id.), and having an oxidant output port (“outlet 66a is used for removing the electrochemically activated water/electrolytic solution from the anode compartment of reactor 6” para. 61 and see Fig. 1), and accepting electrical energy from a source of electrical energy (“a controllable voltage source not shown in FIG. 1 in order [sic] between anode 61 and cathode 62 (FIG. 2) to control the desired current flow measured by a not shown ammeter” para. 65); and
(c) a control system (“An also not shown control device” para. 65), configured to control the electrolyte pump responsive to the amperage of electrical energy consumed by the electrolytic cell such that the oxidant concentration of the oxidant exiting the electrolytic cell is maintained between predetermined upper and lower bounds (see below).
Regarding the limitation “configured to control the electrolyte pump responsive to the amperage of electrical energy consumed by the electrolytic cell such that the oxidant concentration of the oxidant exiting the electrolytic cell is maintained between predetermined upper and lower bounds”, Salathe teaches the controller controls the system to maintain the redox potential of the oxidant solution between predetermined upper and lower bounds i.e., “1340 mV ±20 mV”, by adjusting the flow rate and current (para. 71). As evidenced by e.g., Salathe, the redox potential of the oxidant solution is proportional to the concentration of the oxidants therein (i.e., the redox potential of the solution is a function of the concentrations of NaOCl, HOCl, ozone, and Cl2, paras. 12-15, see also paras. 4-6). Therefore, as Salathe teaches the controller maintains the redox potential of the oxidant solution between predetermined upper and lower bounds, it is considered that the controller of Salathe also necessarily maintains the oxidant concentration between predetermined upper and lower bounds. Salathe therefore reads on the limitation “configured to control the electrolyte pump responsive to the amperage of electrical energy consumed by the electrolytic cell such that the oxidant concentration of the oxidant exiting the electrolytic cell is maintained between predetermined upper and lower bounds” (MPEP § 2112).
Alternatively, because Salathe teaches the controller maintains the redox potential between predetermined upper and lower bounds (para. 71), and the redox potential of the oxidant solution is proportional to the concentration of the oxidants therein, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the controller of Salathe maintains the oxidant concentration between predetermined upper and lower bounds. Salathe therefore reads on the limitation “configured to control the electrolyte pump responsive to the amperage of electrical energy consumed by the electrolytic cell such that the oxidant concentration of the oxidant exiting the electrolytic cell is maintained between predetermined upper and lower bounds”.
Salathe does not teach the control system controls the electrolyte pump to increase the flow rate of the electrolyte pump when the amperage of electrical energy consumed by the electrolytic cell increases. Salathe instead teaches the control system controls the amperage of the electrolytic cell to increase when the flow rate of the electrolyte pump increases (“the current applied to the electrodes 61, 62 is increased if the pH-value rises above 3 (i.e. if the measured volumetric flow V’ increases” para. 71, see also para. 27).
However, Salathe further teaches that the oxidant concentration can be suitably controlled by maintaining a constant current and adjusting the flow rate through the reactor (“According to the invention it is particularly also possible to keep constant two of the three aforementioned parameters namely current (i.e. electric current between the electrodes of reactor 6), volumetric flow through the reactor 6 (i.e., volumetric flow of dilute water/electrolytic solution) and dosed in electrolytic solution quantity and to keep the pH value in the inventive range solely by controlling the third parameter.” para. 71).
As Salathe teaches a method for generating a disinfectant solution using an electrochemical cell, Salathe is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the control system of Salathe, such that the control system controls the electrolyte pump to increase the flow rate of the electrolyte pump when the amperage of electrical energy consumed by the electrolytic cell increases. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as Salathe teaches this is a suitable alternative to controlling the electrical energy consumed by the electrolytic cell to increase when the flow rate of the electrolyte pump increases. Simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., configuring the control system of Salathe to increase the flow rate as a function of measured current, rather than increasing the current as a function of measured flow rate) to achieve predictable results (maintaining a constant oxidant concentration and pH) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Salathe does not teach the control system controls the electrolyte pump to decrease the flow rate of the electrolyte pump when the amperage of electrical energy consumed by the electrolytic cell decreases. Salathe instead teaches the control system controls the amperage of the electrolytic cell to decrease when the flow rate of the electrolyte pump decreases (“the current is reduced if the pH-value drops below 3 (i.e. if the measured volumetric flow V'… decreases” para. 71).
However, Salathe further teaches it is possible to maintain the oxidant concentration by maintaining a constant current and adjusting the flow rate through the reactor (“According to the invention it is particularly also possible to keep constant two of the three aforementioned parameters namely current (i.e. electric current between the electrodes of reactor 6), volumetric flow through the reactor 6 (i.e., volumetric flow of dilute water/electrolytic solution) and dosed in electrolytic solution quantity and to keep the pH value in the inventive range solely by controlling the third parameter.” Para. 71).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the control system of Salathe, such that the control system controls the electrolyte pump to decrease the flow rate of the electrolyte pump when the amperage of electrical energy consumed by the electrolytic cell decreases. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as Salathe teaches this is a suitable alternative to controlling the electrical energy consumed by the electrolytic cell to decrease when the flow rate of the electrolyte pump decreases. Simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., configuring the control system of Salathe to decrease the flow rate as a function of measured current, rather than decreasing the current as a function of measured flow rate) to achieve predictable results (maintaining a constant oxidant concentration and pH) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Salathe teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Salathe further teaches the control system comprises an electronic circuit (“using PID controllers.” para. 65).
Regarding claim 7, modified Salathe teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Salathe further teaches the input port of the electrolytic cell is connected to the output port of the electrolyte pump without an intervening mixing cell (“A not shown, controllable pump integrated into reactor 6 is used for the controllable delivery of dilute water/electrolytic solution through the electrolytic reactor.” para. 65, emphasis added, indicating the pump is located downstream from “mixer 5”, which mixes the electrolytic solution in “storage tank 7” and water from “pipe 2” para. 59 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Salathe teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Salathe does not teach the voltage across the electrolytic cell is constant, but rather teaches the current is controlled by using “a controllable voltage source” (para. 65).
However, Salathe further teaches that the system may suitably be controlled by varying the flow rate and mixing ratio of the water and electrolyte, rather than controlling the current directly (para. 71).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Salathe, such that the voltage across the electrolytic cell is constant. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Salathe teaches this is a suitable alternative to using a variable voltage source. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 9, Salathe teaches an apparatus for the production of disinfectant (title), comprising:
(a) an electrolyte pump, having an input port and an output port (“A not shown, controllable pump integrated into reactor 6 is used for the controllable delivery of dilute water/electrolytic solution through the electrolytic reactor.” para. 65);
(b) an electrolyte reservoir, in fluid communication with the input port of the electrolyte pump (“a storage tank 7 for receiving an electrolytic solution” para. 59 and Fig. 1);
(c) an electrolytic cell (“electrolytic reactor 6” para. 65 and Fig. 1), in fluid communication with the electrolyte pump such that the flow rate of electrolyte into the electrolytic cell is determined by the flow rate of the electrolyte pump (“the pump controlling the volume flow and therefore the residence time of the water/electrolytic solution in reactor 6” Id.), and having a disinfectant output port (“outlet 66a is used for removing the electrochemically activated water/electrolytic solution from the anode compartment of reactor 6” para. 61 and Fig. 1);
(d) a disinfectant reservoir (“storage tank 13” para. 64 and Fig. 1, in fluid communication with the disinfectant output port (“outlet 66a from the anode compartment of electrolytic reactor 6 issues into a storage tank 13” para. 64 and Fig. 1);
(e) a power monitor that produces a signal representative of power consumed by the electrolytic cell (“current flow measured by a not shown ammeter” para. 65);
(f) a control system (“An also not shown control device,” Id.) that controls the flow rate of the electrolyte pump responsive to the signal (see below).
Regarding the limitation “a control system that controls the flow rate of the electrolyte pump responsive to the signal”, Salathe teaches the control system controls the flow rate of the electrolyte pump (para. 65) in order to maintain a constant pH and redox potential (paras. 65 and 71), the controller measures the current (i.e., via the ammeter, para. 65), and the pH and redox potential of the oxidant solution depends on the current/power consumed by the system (paras. 20-24). It is therefore considered that the control system of Salathe necessarily controls the flow rate of the electrolyte pump at least partially in response to the signal received by the ammeter, in order to maintain the pH and redox potential as described.
Alternatively, because Salathe teaches the control system controls the flow rate of the electrolyte pump (para. 65) in order to maintain a constant pH and redox potential (paras. 65 and 71), the controller measures the current (i.e., via the ammeter, para. 65), and the pH and redox potential of the oxidant solution depends on the current/power consumed by the system (paras. 20-24), a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the control system of Salathe controls the flow rate of the electrolyte pump at least partially in response to the signal received by the ammeter.
Salathe does not explicitly teach the control system provides for an electrolyte pump flow rate that increases with increasing power consumed by the electrolytic cell. Salathe instead teaches the control system increases the power consumed by the electrolytic cell with an increasing electrolyte pump flow rate (paras. 27 and 71).
However, Salathe further teaches that the pH and redox potential of the oxidizing solution can be suitably controlled by maintaining a constant current and adjusting the flow rate through the reactor (“According to the invention it is particularly also possible to keep constant two of the three aforementioned parameters namely current (i.e. electric current between the electrodes of reactor 6), volumetric flow through the reactor 6 (i.e., volumetric flow of dilute water/electrolytic solution) and dosed in electrolytic solution quantity and to keep the pH value in the inventive range solely by controlling the third parameter.” Para. 71).
As Salathe teaches a method for generating a disinfectant solution using an electrochemical cell, Salathe is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the control system of Salathe, such that the control system provides for an electrolyte pump flow rate that increases with increasing power consumed by the electrolytic cell. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as Salathe teaches this is a suitable alternative to increasing the power consumed by the electrolytic cell when the flow rate of the electrolyte pump increases. Simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., configuring the control system of Salathe to increase the flow rate as a function of measured power, rather than increasing the power as a function of measured flow rate) to achieve predictable results (maintaining a constant oxidation-reduction potential and pH) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Salathe further teaches the power monitor produces a signal representative of electrical current into the electrolytic cell (“current flow measured by a not shown ammeter” para. 65).
Regarding claim 13, modified Salathe teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above.
Salathe does not teach the control system provides for an electrolyte pump flow rate that decreases with decreasing power consumed by the electrolytic cell. Salathe instead teaches the control system decreases the power consumed by the electrolytic cell with a decreasing electrolyte pump flow rate (paras. 27 and 71).
However, Salathe further teaches that the pH and redox potential of the oxidizing solution can be suitably controlled by maintaining a constant current and adjusting the flow rate through the reactor (“According to the invention it is particularly also possible to keep constant two of the three aforementioned parameters namely current (i.e. electric current between the electrodes of reactor 6), volumetric flow through the reactor 6 (i.e., volumetric flow of dilute water/electrolytic solution) and dosed in electrolytic solution quantity and to keep the pH value in the inventive range solely by controlling the third parameter.” Para. 71).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the control system of Salathe, such that the control system provides for an electrolyte pump flow rate that decreases with decreasing power consumed by the electrolytic cell. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Salathe teaches this is a suitable alternative to decreasing the power consumed by the electrolytic cell when the flow rate of the electrolyte pump decreases. Simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., configuring the control system of Salathe to decrease the flow rate as a function of measured power, rather than decreasing the power as a function of measured flow rate) to achieve predictable results (maintaining a constant oxidation-reduction potential and pH) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 2-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salathe, as applied to claims 1 or 9, and further in view of Cocking (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0278585 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Salathe teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Salathe does not teach the electrolyte pump comprises a positive displacement pump, but is rather silent as to the type of pump to be used.
However, Cocking teaches that positive displacement pumps are suitable for passing brine solutions to electrolytic cells configured to generate disinfectant solutions (para. 31 and see abstract).
As Cocking teaches an apparatus for the electrochemical production of disinfectant, Cocking is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Salathe, such that the unspecified pump used is a positive displacement pump, as taught by Cocking. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Cocking teaches positive displacement pumps are suitable for this purpose. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Salathe teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Salathe does not teach the electrolyte pump comprises a peristaltic pump, but is rather silent as to the type of pump to be used.
However, Cocking teaches that peristaltic pumps are preferably used to pass brine solutions to electrolytic cells configured to generate disinfectant solutions (para. 31 and see abstract), because peristaltic pumps avoid contamination of the brine solution (para. 31).
As Cocking teaches an apparatus for the electrochemical production of disinfectant, Cocking is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Salathe, such that the unspecified pump used is a peristaltic pump, as taught by Cocking. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of passing the brine solution to the electrolytic cell without introducing contamination, as taught by Cocking. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Salathe teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above.
Salathe does not explicitly teach the electrolytic cell is in fluid communication with the output port of the electrolyte pump. Salathe teaches the electrolyte pump is located between the “mixer 5” and the “storage tank 13” i.e., “integrated into reactor 6” (para. 65), but is otherwise silent as to the location of the electrolyte pump.
However, Cocking teaches that an electrolyte pump (“peristaltic pump 28” para. 45 and Fig. 1) configured to deliver a brine solution to an electrolytic cell configured to generate a disinfectant solution (abstract) can be suitably located between the brine source and the electrolytic cell i.e., such that the electrolytic cell is in fluid communication with the output port of the electrolyte pump (see Fig. 1).
As Cocking teaches an apparatus for the electrochemical production of disinfectant, Cocking is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Salathe, such that the electrolytic cell is in fluid communication with the output port of the electrolyte pump, as taught by Cocking. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Cocking teaches this is a suitable location for an electrolyte pump. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salathe, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Van Kalken (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0256243 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Salathe teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Salathe does not teach the control system comprises a programmed digital controller.
However, Van Kalken teaches a method for controlling an electrochemical apparatus for the production of disinfectant (abstract), wherein a programmed digital controller adjusts the flow rate to an electrolytic cell (abstract), such that a desired oxidant concentration is achieved (para. 13), which allows for lower power consumption (para. 13).
As Van Kalken teaches an electrochemical apparatus for the production of disinfectant, Van Kalken is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Salathe, such that the control system comprises a programmed digital controller, as taught by Van Kalken. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of lowering power consumption, as taught by Van Kalken. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salathe, as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Hirota (EP 1108683 B1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Salathe teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above.
Salathe does not teach the electrolytic cell is in fluid communication with the electrolyte reservoir and the electrolyte pump such that fluid from the electrolyte reservoir passes through the electrolytic cell before reaching the input port of the electrolyte pump. Salathe teaches the electrolyte pump is located between the “mixer 5” and the “storage tank 13” i.e., “integrated into reactor 6” (para. 65), but is otherwise silent as to the location of the electrolyte pump.
However, Hirota teaches an apparatus for the electrochemical production of a disinfectant (e.g., para. 15), wherein the flowrate through an electrolyzer (“electrolytic tank 12” para. 125 and Fig. 1) is controlled via a pump (“circulating pump P2” paras. 125 and 138, and Fig. 1) arranged such that fluid from an electrolyte reservoir (“solution tank 30a” para. 110) passes through the electrolytic cell before reaching the input port of the electrolyte pump (see Fig. 1).
As Hirota teaches an electrochemical apparatus for the production of disinfectant, Hirota is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Salathe, such that the electrolytic cell is in fluid communication with the electrolyte reservoir and the electrolyte pump such that fluid from the electrolyte reservoir passes through the electrolytic cell before reaching the input port of the electrolyte pump, as taught by Hirota. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Hirota teaches this is a suitable configuration for a pump controlling the flowrate through an electrolyzer in an electrochemical disinfectant generator. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wylie (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0174942 A1) teaches an electrochemical system for producing disinfectant, wherein a control system controls the flow rate through an electrolysis cell to maintain a desired free available chlorine (oxidant) concentration. Beltrup (US Pat. Pub. 2010/0310672 A1) describes an improvement on Salathe. Kim (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0114569 A1) teaches a method of controlling the oxidant concentration of an electrolytically produced oxidant by controlling the flow rate of electrolyte to an electrolytic cell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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 V. 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 R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795