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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/05/2025 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1, 14 and 18 have been amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025, with respect to claim rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art rejections are maintained and modified as necessitated by the amendments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The newly added negative limitation reciting: the method requires an open-loop system that is not electrified but for electricity contained within the electrolyzer, the entire water line passing though the electrolyzer, has no description or explanation in the original specification.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claims 1, 14 and 18 recite the method requires an open-loop system that is not electrified but for electricity contained within the electrolyzer, the entire water line passing though the electrolyzer, which makes the claims indefinite because it is not clear what the limitation encompasses. In particular, it is not clear how to interpret: electricity contained within the electrolyzer, as electricity is not something static. Does it refer to an electricity stored in a battery or is it some sort of residual charges? For the purpose of further examination the above limitation will be interpreted as when the electrolyzer is not powered, the entire water line passes through the electrolyzer.
Claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19 are also indefinite as depending on indefinite claims 1, 14 and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms (US 2017/0202156 A1) in view of Feng (CN 205756119 U, machine translation).
Considering claims 1, 14 and 18, Harms discloses a method of delivering hydrogen to plants to enhance their growth (abstract) comprising: disposing a unit (36) in communication with an irrigation water supply (30) (Fig. 1); wherein the unit (36) contains an electrolyzer [0024], a waterline input (se Fig. 1), and a waterline output (see Fig. 1) [0019]; connecting the electrolyzer of the unit to a power supply (54) [0024]; initiating the flow of water within the waterline (inherently); the water supply providing the flow of water to the waterline (Fig. 1); the electrolyzer (36) converting a portion of the water of the waterline into oxygen and hydrogen [0024]; wherein the electrolyzer splits water coming from the waterline of the irrigation water supply (Figs. 1 and 2);
the unit channeling dissolved microbubbles of hydrogen and oxygen back into the water of the waterline ([0024] and Fig. 2); the water saturated with the dissolved microbubbles exiting the unit via the waterline output and proceeding to the plants ([0024] and Fig. 1).
Harms does not disclose that the passage of water activates the electrolyzer of the unit, the water have never been exposed to electrolysis and on open-loop.
Feng discloses electrolysis for plant irrigation in soil (page 5, last 2 paragraphs and abstract) and an open-loop system (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that initially when there is no water in the electrolyzer the circuit is open, because there is no electrolyte between the electrodes. When the water starts running through the electrolyzer, the circuit closes due to the presence of electrolyte (water) in between the electrodes of the electrolyzer, thus activating the electrolyzer. It would have been obvious to use an open-loop system when the electorlyzed water is delivered into the soli as the water is used for soil irrigation.
With respect to claims 14 and 18, reciting the method of enhancing growth and the method of maintaining freshness post-harvest, are merely intended use as the claims do not require any particular steps of performing the intended use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when the electrolyzer is not powered, the entire water line passes through the electrolyzer in the method of Harms, for example when there is power outage or the electrolytic water is not required, such as after harvest.
PNG
media_image1.png
483
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
388
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Considering claim 2-6 and 12, Harms teaches that electroculture techniques have been used in soil-based agriculture [0006].
Harms does not disclose exposing the soil of the plants to the microbubbles, banking hydrogen and oxygen into the soil, enhancing plant growth.
Furthermore, Feng discloses electrolysis for plant irrigation in soil (page 5, last 2 paragraphs and abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the in-line electrolysis system of Harms in the irrigation system of plants in soil, because Harms teaches that electroculture techniques are used in soil-based agriculture and also Feng teaches that water hydrolysis increases growth of plants in soil. Therefore, one would have known that using the electroculture techniques of Harms in soil-based agriculture, as the one described by Feng would result in the effect of growth stimulation.
Considering claim 7-11 and 13, Harms discloses the entirety of the waterline flows through the electrolyzer (Fig. 1).
Considering claims 15-17, Harms discloses the waterline output flows into the container 22, having rectangular shape, however the container 22 may take on any other size, shape and/or dimensions [0019]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the container of Harms shaped as bowl or pool, because Harms discloses that the shape of the container 22 can be any known shape.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms (US 2017/0202156 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Iwamoto (JP 2014230506 A, machine translation).
Considering claims 14 and 18, Harms discloses a method of delivering hydrogen to plants to enhance their growth (abstract) comprising: disposing a unit (36) in communication with an irrigation water supply (30) (Fig. 1); wherein the unit (36) contains an electrolyzer [0024], a waterline input (se Fig. 1), and a waterline output (see Fig. 1) [0019]; connecting the electrolyzer of the unit to a power supply (54) [0024]; initiating the flow of water within the waterline (inherently); the water supply providing the flow of water to the waterline (Fig. 1); the electrolyzer (36) converting a portion of the water of the waterline into oxygen and hydrogen [0024]; wherein the electrolyzer splits water coming from the waterline of the irrigation water supply (Figs. 1 and 2);
the unit channeling dissolved microbubbles of hydrogen and oxygen back into the water of the waterline ([0024] and Fig. 2); the water saturated with the dissolved microbubbles exiting the unit via the waterline output and proceeding to the plants ([0024] and Fig. 1).
Harms does not disclose that the passage of water activates the electrolyzer of the unit and that the method is for enhancing growth in livestock, poultry and fish.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that initially when there is no water in the electrolyzer the circuit is open, because there is no electrolyte between the electrodes. When the water starts running through the electrolyzer, the circuit closes due to the presence of electrolyte (water) in between the electrodes of the electrolyzer, thus activating the electrolyzer.
Furthermore, Iwamoto teaches using dissolved oxygen and hydrogen formed by electrolysis for promoting growth of animals and plants [0001]-[0006]. Iwamoto also teaches tap water or well water input through a filter device 6 [0022]. The electrolyzed water is used to spray broccoli [0014], thus indicating open-loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method of enhancing growth of plants by oxygenating and hydrogenating water, can be used in the enhancing growth of animals, such as fish, poultry and livestock, because Iwamoto teaches using dissolved oxygen and hydrogen form by electrolysis for promoting growth of animals and plants [0001]-[0006], such system is expected to be an open loop system, where water is sprayed upon plants e.g. irrigated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when the electrolyzer is not powered, the entire water line passes through the electrolyzer in the method of Harms, for example when there is power outage or the electrolytic water is not required, such as after harvest.
Considering claims 15-17, Harms discloses the waterline output flows into the container 22, having rectangular shape, however the container 22 may take on any other size, shape and/or dimensions [0019]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the container of Harms shaped as bowl or pool, because Harms discloses that the shape of the container 22 can be any known shape.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms and Iwamoto, as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Hancock et al. (Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10448).
Considering claim 19, Harms does not disclose exposing the post-harvest produce and/or product to the water saturated with the dissolved microbubbles.
However, Hancock teaches that treatment with H2 can improve the postharvest preservation of fruits, vegetables and flowers (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrosys water of Harms as modified by Iwamoto to expose post-harvest produce, because Hancock teaches that treatment with H2 in gas or in hydrogen rich water can improve the postharvest preservation of fruits, vegetables and flowers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the new limitation reciting the method requires an open-loop system that is not electrified but for electricity contained within the electrolyzer, the entire water line passing though the electrolyzer is not recited by the prior art. However, this limitation is obvious for example when there is power outage or the electrolytic water is not required, such as after harvest.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights