DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited combination fails to teach all elements of the claims, in particular the timing of the heating and recirculation steps, inhibiting power when the determined conductance is not equal to the predetermined conductance, and heating when the determined conductance and predetermined conductance are equal. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have an electrolytic solution at an appropriate and desired concentration, as previously set forth. It follows that the electrochemical cell would be powered when the conductance is ideal and unpowered when the conductance is outside an acceptable range. Applicant suggests that heating of the fluid is an intended result of the claimed inventions; however, it was shown that fluid is heated concurrently with production of electrolyzed water. While the previously set forth combination has an intended result of producing electrolyzed water, it nonetheless also has the result of heating the fluid.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims, 1, 3-5, and 7-10 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170314179 by Arai et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200140295 by Hii et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130327353 by Field et al., and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20030188976 by Culvey et al.
As to claim 1, Arai teaches a method of operating a water-bearing electrical apparatus (fig. 1) having a water receiving element, an electrochemical cell 5 (fig. 1), a dosing device 8 for dosing a conductivity transmitter-containing washing and/or cleaning means into the cell, the method comprising conducting water into the cell (fig. 6(b), para. 146); and dosing the washing and/or cleaning means into the cell or into the water flowing through it (fig. 6(b), para. 146).
Arai does not teach determining a conductance of the fluid in the cell and adjusting the determined conductance to a predetermined conductance. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to determine conductance and adjust it to a predetermined conductance. Arai teaches that that an electrolytic solution supplied to the cell should have an appropriate concentration (para. 146) within a predetermined range for generation of electrolyzed water in the cell (paras. 82-88) and the concentration of the electrolytic solution may be adjusted by dilution with water if necessary to achieve the appropriate concentration (para. 146). It was known that a concentration of an electrolyte may be determined by measuring conductivity (see Hii, para. 97). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine a conductance of the electrolytic solution to know its concentration, which is a known method of determining concentration from the teachings of Hii, and adjust the determined conductance if necessary in order to achieve a predetermined conductance to produce an electrolytic solution of an ideal concentration based on the teachings and suggestions of Arai.
Based on the teachings and suggestions of Arai and Hii, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to compare a predetermined conductance with the determined conductance and adjust the concentration the electrolytic solution as necessary by conducting water into the cell to reduce the concentration or meter additional electrolyte into the cell to increase the concentration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized as obvious to inhibit power to the cell until the conductance equals the predetermined conductance so that the concentration of the electrolytic solution is ideal for production of electrolytic water.
Arai does not teach operating the cell in such a manner that the fluid inside it is heated (interpreted to mean that the cell itself heats the liquid and not an auxiliary device within or in association with the cell). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the cell would heat the fluid. Field teaches that current induced through an electrolysis cell also heats the liquid therein, which increases cleaning properties of the liquid (para. 49). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the electrolytic production would heat the fluid, which advantageously results in increased cleaning properties of the fluid.
Arai also does not teach recirculating fluid from a first area of the water receiving element back through the cell to a second area of the water receiving element. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to recirculate fluid back through the cell. Culvey teaches that that recirculating electrolyzed water back through a cell allows for maintaining a selected oxidation-reduction potential level of the wash water (para. 194). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method taught by Arai and the corresponding structure of its apparatus so that the fluid may be recirculated back through the cell so that an oxidation-reduction potential level of wash water may be maintained, as suggested by Culvey. Upon this obvious modification, the fluid would be recirculated from a first area (any of the portions within the tub, e.g. the sump) to a second area (any other portion within the tub, e.g. within the drum) since recirculated fluid would necessarily flow to all areas within the tub.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also have recognized as obvious to maintain the conductance at the predetermined conductance by repeatedly or continuously determine the conductance of the fluid and set it to the predetermined conductance as necessary, which the cell is in operation and heat is generated, in order to maintain an ideal solution concentration.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was filed.
As to claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that determining conductance is performed by applying a voltage and measuring a current flow between electrodes of a cell (see Hii, para. 50).
As to claim 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious heating would be performed when the determined conductance is equal to the predetermined conductance. Upon the obvious modification discussed above, the cell would operate when the determined conductance equals a predetermined conductance for ideal electrolyte production and heating would thus be performed during the electrolytic production.
As to claim 8, Arai teaches that the washing and/or cleaning means contains a conductivity transmitter-containing means selected from the group consisting of alkali carrier, inorganic or organic acid, salt of organic acid, phosphonate, surfactant, and/or mixtures thereof (para. 82).
As to claim 9, Arai teaches a water-bearing electrical apparatus (fig. 1) having a water intake element, an electrochemical cell 5 (fig. 1), a dosing device 8 for dosing a conductivity transmitter-containing washing and/or cleaning means into the cell, and a control unit (para. 59) configured to conduct water into the cell (fig. 6(b), para. 146) and dose the washing and/or cleaning means into the cell or into the water flowing through it (fig. 6(b), para. 146).
Arai does not teach determining a conductance of the fluid in the cell and adjusting the determined conductance to a predetermined conductance. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to determine conductance and adjust it to a predetermined conductance. Arai teaches that that an electrolytic solution supplied to the cell should have an appropriate concentration (para. 146) within a predetermined range for generation of electrolyzed water in the cell (paras. 82-88) and the concentration of the electrolytic solution may be adjusted by dilution with water if necessary to achieve the appropriate concentration (para. 146). It was known that a concentration of an electrolyte may be determined by measuring conductivity (see Hii, para. 97). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the control unit of Arai to determine a conductance of the electrolytic solution to know its concentration, which is a known method of determining concentration from the teachings of Hii, and to adjust the determined conductance if necessary in order to achieve a predetermined conductance to produce an electrolytic solution of an ideal concentration based on the teachings and suggestions of Arai.
Based on the teachings and suggestions of Arai and Hii, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to compare a predetermined conductance with the determined conductance and adjust the concentration the electrolytic solution as necessary by conducting water into the cell to reduce the concentration or meter additional electrolyte into the cell to increase the concentration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized as obvious to inhibit power to the cell until the conductance equals the predetermined conductance so that the concentration of the electrolytic solution is ideal for production of electrolytic water.
Arai does not teach operating the cell in such a manner that the fluid inside it is heated (interpreted to mean that the cell itself heats the liquid and not an auxiliary device within or in association with the cell). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the cell would heat the fluid. Field teaches that current induced through an electrolysis cell also heats the liquid therein, which increases cleaning properties of the liquid (para. 49). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the electrolytic production would heat the fluid, which advantageously results in increased cleaning properties of the fluid.
Arai also does not teach recirculating fluid from a first area of the water receiving element back through the cell to a second area of the water receiving element. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to recirculate fluid back through the cell. Culvey teaches that that recirculating electrolyzed water back through a cell allows for maintaining a selected oxidation-reduction potential level of the wash water (para. 194). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the control unit configuration taught by Arai and the corresponding structure of its apparatus so that the fluid may be recirculated back through the cell so that an oxidation-reduction potential level of wash water may be maintained, as suggested by Culvey. Upon this obvious modification, the fluid would be recirculated from a first area (any of the portions within the tub, e.g. the sump) to a second area (any other portion within the tub, e.g. within the drum) since recirculated fluid would necessarily flow to all areas within the tub.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also have recognized as obvious to maintain the conductance at the predetermined conductance by repeatedly or continuously determine the conductance of the fluid and set it to the predetermined conductance as necessary, which the cell is in operation and heat is generated, in order to maintain an ideal solution concentration.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was filed.
As to claim 10, Arai teaches that the apparatus is a washing machine (fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170314179 by Arai et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200140295 by Hii et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130327353 by Field et al., and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20030188976 by Culvey et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230093189 by Guo et al.
As to claim 4, Arai teaches that its cell is designed to be used with tap water, which is known to have a hardness above 14°dH (see Guo, para. 302). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized as obvious that the cell would be designed with a working area above a conductance present at a water hardness above 14°dH.
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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights