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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 27 April 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0100833 A1 to Asada et al. (Asada) in view of US 6,361,715 B1 to Reznik (Reznik).
As to claim 14, Asada teaches a method of producing a chlorine dioxide solution from an electrolyte mixture comprising sodium chlorite and oxalic acid through application of a voltage difference causing a current of less than 1 amp to flow through the mixture (Abstract; Paragraphs 0031, 0038, 0047, Table 1). However, Asada teaches that the voltage is applied to a single anode/cathode pair for the generation of, for example, 554.3 ppm chlorine dioxide (Paragraph 0043; Table 1). However, Asada does further teach that it is preferable to make an electrode area large (Paragraph 0026) and teaches 554.3 ppm merely as exemplary. Reznik also discusses electrolytic water treatment in a flow through undivided fashion and teaches that a plurality of anodes and cathode can be provided alternatively in order to increase the electrode area and thus increase the rate of reaction with low power requirements (Column 9, Line 8 to Column 10, Line 10; Example XVI; Figure 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the single anode/cathode pair of Asada with the plural electrode configuration of Reznik in order to increase the overall electrode area and increase the rate of reaction, generating more product as taught by Reznik. Reznik teaches that the electrode configuration includes a flow through system, with the electrolyte inherently pumped in some fashion, such that the electrolyte flows sequentially past a cathode, i.e. a first cathode, through a first circulation loop, past an anode, through a second circulation loop, and then past another cathode, i.e. second cathode (Figure 9).
The combination with the increased surface area of the electrode would inherently produce a higher ppm chlorine dioxide; however, the combination is silent as to the specific value. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the method reactions conditions, i.e. temperate, starting reactant concentration, flow rate/residence time, current/voltage in order to achieve any number of desired ppm chlorine dioxide concentration depending on a desirable end usage (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Asada and Reznik as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 2023/0226502 A1 to Pasini et al. (Pasini).
As to claim 15, the combination of Asada and Reznik teaches the method of claim 14. Reznik teaches that there is an inlet upstream of each cathode (Figure 9), but fails to teach that these inlets are provided with orifice rings to create turbulence in the mixture flowing past the cathodes. However, Pasini discusses electrolytic cells for the production of chlorine products and teaches that at the inlets a helical member (ring orifice) should be located in order to increase turbulence for removal of formed gas bubbles from the surface of the electrodes (Paragraph 0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the a helical member (ring orifice) at the inlets of each cathode of the combination in order to increase turbulence for removal of formed gas bubbles from the surface of the electrodes as taught by Pasini.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Asada and Reznik as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 2018/0065868 A1 to Anderson et al. (Anderson).
As to claim 16, the combination of Asada and Reznik teaches the method of claim 14. However, Asada fails to further teach that the voltage is applied as pulsed voltage. However, Anderson also discusses electrolytic generation of disinfectants and teaches that voltages can equivalently be applied constant or pulsed (Paragraph 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize pulsed voltage as an known effective equivalent for applying the voltage as taught by Anderson (MPEP 2144.06).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights