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 .
Currently claims 1-11 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “improved” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In specific, claim 1 recites the controller performs some operation to “improve the electrolytic liquid generation function” or “improve the disinfection function.”
The wording of “improve” is relative. Improvement could mean higher ozone (or other disinfectant) concentration in one mode versus the other. However, improvement could also mean energy efficiency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2004-324190 of Nishimura et al. Machine translation provided in IDS dated 2/1/2024.
As to claims 1 and 11, Nishimura teaches an electrolytic liquid generation system comprising:
a liquid flow path that allows a liquid to flow through the liquid flow path (Nishimura, [0028] – [0031] and Figs. 1 and 5);
a functional unit that comprises an electrolytic liquid generation function of generating an electrolytic liquid from the liquid by electrolyzing the liquid fed through the liquid flow path, and a disinfection function of disinfecting the liquid (Nishimura, [0048] – [0052] and Figs. 1 and 5); and
a controller that controls at least one of the electrolytic liquid generation function or the disinfection function of the functional unit,
such that the controller is configured to operate in any one of a plurality of control modes including at least a first control mode and a second control mode,
the controller is configured to improve the electrolytic liquid generation function in the first control mode more than in the second control mode, and
the controller is configured to improve the disinfection function in the second control mode more than in the first control mode (Nishimura, [0048] – [0052] and Figs. 1 and 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen in Figs. 1 and 5, there is an electrolytic cell (2) that functions in a plurality of modes such that a controller (8) is configured to operate the electrolytic cell in a first mode of low ozone concentration or high ozone concentration, thus disclosing the “improved” electrolytic liquid generation functional and “improved” disinfection function of the system
As to claim 3, Nishimura teaches the functional unit comprises an electrolytic cell (i.e. electrolytic part) such that the controller is configured to operate the cell at a higher current in the “improved” disinfection mode (i.e. second mode) vs. the first mode (Nishimura, [0052]).
As to claim 5, Nishimura teaches an operation input unit that receives a human operation such that the controller is configured to select a mode based on the operation input unit (Nishimura, [0048]).
As stated in Nishimura, the system includes buttons to be pressed to select high or low concentration ozone being generated by the system.
As to claim 8, Nishimura teaches the electrolytic liquid is ozone water (Nishimura, [0028], [0048] and Fig. 5). It is further noted that this is the product formed by the system, thus it does not actually further limit the claims in terms of structure. As such even if Nishimura did not specifically state ozone water was formed, it would be capable thereof in relation to the electrolytic cell structure (see MPEP 2114 I and II).
As to claim 9, Nishimura teaches a power source (3) connected to the electrolytic cell (Nishimura, [0028] and Fig. 1).
As to claim 10, Nishimura teaches a liquid feeder (i.e. water source) that feeds liquid into the flow path (Nishimura, [0027]), thus disclosing the claim limitation as set forth by Applicant’s specification ([0028] of the printed publication).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0137305 of Tanahashi et al.
As to claim 1, Tanahashi teaches of an electrolytic liquid generation system comprising:
a liquid flow path that allows a liquid to flow through the liquid flow path (Tanahashi, [0054] and Fig. 4) ;
a functional unit that comprises an electrolytic liquid generation function of generating an electrolytic liquid from the liquid by electrolyzing the liquid fed through the liquid flow path, and a disinfection function of disinfecting the liquid (Tanahashi, [0102] – [0111], [0132] – [133] and Figs. 1, 4 and 5); and
a controller that controls at least one of the electrolytic liquid generation function or the disinfection function of the functional unit,
such that the controller is configured to operate in any one of a plurality of control modes including at least a first control mode and a second control mode,
the controller is configured to improve the electrolytic liquid generation function in the first control mode more than in the second control mode, and
the controller is configured to improve the disinfection function in the second control mode more than in the first control mode (Tanahashi, [0037] – [0041], [0044] – [0047], [0059], [0077] – [0083]).
As seen in Tanahashi, the system includes an electrolytic cell that is operated at a plurality of modes such that in one mode, an “improved” disinfection function is performed (process (i) as per Tanahashi) and in another mode an “improved” electrolytic liquid generation function is performed (process (ii) as per Tanahashi).
As to claim 2, Tanahashi teaches the functional unit comprises a flow rate adjuster such that the controller is configured to control the flow rate adjuster to decrease the liquid feed rate during the disinfection mode (i.e. second mode of claimed invention, thus process (i) of Tanahashi) (Tanahashi, [0131]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanahashi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2016/0229716 of Lee et al.
As to claim 4, Lee teaches to the system of claim 2.
Tanahashi teaches the functional unit comprises a flow rate adjuster such that the controller is configured to control the flow rate adjuster to decrease the liquid feed rate during the disinfection mode (i.e. second mode of claimed invention, thus process (i) of Tanahashi) (Tanahashi, [0131]).
Tanahashi does not specifically teach that the controller is configured to control the disinfection mode (second control mode of higher ozone concentration) by decreasing the current level while having a decreased flow rate.
Lee teaches of a sterilization system including an electrolyzer (Lee, [0081] – [0083]).
Lee teaches that within such system, to increase the concentration of sterilizing water, the input current may be increased or the flow rate may be decreased (Lee, [0247]).
Alternatively, to increase sterilizing power (which is due to increased concentration of sterilizing components) the operation time of the electrolyzer should be increased or the volume of the water should be decreased (Lee, [0248]).
As Tanahashi teaches the flow rate adjuster is controlled to reduce the flow rate during the disinfection mode (i.e. increasing concentration of sterilizing material within the system), it would be obvious as per Lee that by increasing the time of operation, the concentration also increases, such that lower current levels can be utilized to gain the same sterilization effect as more sterilizing material is formed over more time. It is noted that a decreased current is beneficial to the system as high current can shorten the lifespan of the system (Lee, [0250]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanahashi as per Lee so as to utilize a lower current during the disinfection mode when a decreased flow rate is performed while increasing the operational time in order to allow the system to function at lower current and thus improve the lifespan of the overall system while generating the desired composition.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2002/0070107 of Usinowicz et al.
As to claims 6 and 7, Tanahashi teaches to the system of claim 1.
Tanahashi does not specifically teach a detector for contaminants.
Usinowicz teaches of electrolytic water purification systems (Usinowicz, [0007] – [0010]).
Usinowicz additionally teaches that the system uses a water quality sensor (i.e. contaminant detector) to control the electrolytic cell within the system in order to select a mode of operation (Usinowicz, [0021] and [0035] – [0036]).
Usinowicz teaches that dependent on if the quality of water satisfies specified conditions, the power supply can be activated (Usinowicz, [0021] and [0035] – [0036]).
As Usinowicz teaches that the applied current is controllable (Usinowicz, [0021] and [0042]), it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tanahashi as per Usinowicz to control the electrolytic system based on the contaminants (i.e. water quality) in order to obtain the desired water purity/disinfection quality from the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights