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 .
Claim Status
The Amendment filed on 05 January 2026 has been entered; claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-23 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6 of the Remarks, filed 05 January 2026, with respect to the objection to claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 2 has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7 of the Remarks, filed 05 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 14, 15, 18, and 20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and the rejection of claims 8-13, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Shim in view of Schwartzel, as necessitated by amendment and as set forth in detail below.
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, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2005/0147528) in view of Schwartzel et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2011/0024361), hereinafter “Shim” and “Schwartzel”.
With respect to claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 21-23, Shim teaches a method of treating a water system (Abstract; Paragraph [0047]), comprising preparing a stabilized alkali or alkaline earth metal hypochlorite by mixing a chlorine oxidant including an alkali or alkaline earth metal hypochlorite with a stabilizer in an alkaline solution, and introducing the stabilized alkali or alkaline earth metal hypochlorite into a habitat of microorganisms to raise the level of residual halogen up to 0.1 to 10 ppm (see Abstract; Paragraphs [0023, 0024]), wherein concentrations of the composition are added to the water in example embodiments at concentrations including 25 ppm, 50 ppm, and 100 ppm (see Tables 1-3), which are discrete values within “from 0.1 ppm to 100 ppm”). Shim additionally teaches wherein the chlorine oxidant and stabilizer are present in a molar ratio of 1:9 to 9:1 (Paragraph [0043], a discrete range within “0.01:1 to 20:1” as recited in claim 1 and “1:1 to 10:1” as recited in claim 9), and also that the stabilizer is embodied most preferably as sulfamic acid (Paragraph [0042]).
Shim does not specifically teach that the alkali or alkaline earth metal hypochlorite is generated in situ; however, Schwartzel teaches that NaClO can be electrochemically generated (see Paragraph [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the commercially obtained alkali metal hypochlorite of Shim (see Paragraph [0049]) with the electrochemically generated NaClO of Schwartzel because Schwartzel teaches that the electrochemical generation of sodium hypochlorite can occur on site for the disinfection of water systems including drinking water and cooling water systems (see Paragraph [0130], similar to the water systems of Shim: see Paragraph [0047]), which the ordinary artisan would consider to be advantageous to buying the same reagent as taught by Shim.
Since Shim in view of Schwartzel renders obvious the active steps recited in the method of claim 1, the limitations “improving the efficacy of the in situ generated oxidant in the water stream” are considered to be met as a “intended result” of carrying out the recited method.
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Shim in view of Schwartzel teaches a mixed oxidant comprising peroxide (see Schwartzel: Paragraph [0047]).
With respect to claims 10, 11, and 13, Shim in view of Schwartzel teaches an example stabilized oxidant biocide composition having 9.6g of sulfamic acid and 42.4 g of NaClO (see Paragraph [0051] of Shim), but does not specifically teach a composition comprising the recited oxidant and stabilizer amounts as claimed; however, there is no evidence indicating such oxidant and stabilizer concentrations are critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Examiner also notes that the composition of Shim in view of Schwartzel teaches oxidant and stabilizer within the recited molar ratio and also teaches that oxidant is dosed to water systems to achieve the recited residual
With respect to claim 18, Shim in view of Schwartzel teaches on site, in situ electrochemical generation of hypochlorite as discussed above, and also teaches injection of the stabilized oxidant into the water systems (see Schwartzel: Paragraphs [0047 0048, 0067, 0205]).
With respect to claim 19, Shim in view of Schwartzel teaches that the stabilized oxidant comprises Cl sulfamic (oxidant is NaClO; stabilizer is sulfamic acid as discussed above, and see Shim: Paragraphs [0023, 0034, 0042, 0043]).
With respect to claim 20, Shim in view of Schwartzel teaches that the water system included cooling tower water (see Schwartzel: Paragraph [0043, 0044, 046], and see Shim: Paragraph [0047]).
Claims 3, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Schwartzel as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Carey et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2021/0337801), hereinafter “Carey”.
With respect to claims 3, 14, and 15, Shim in view of Schwartzel does not specifically teach that the oxidant is haloamine or that the composition is dosed according to flow rate or oxidant demand.
Carey teaches addition of haloamine oxidant controlled by a PLC with respect to “oxidant demand” and flow rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the haloamine oxidant of Carey according to flow rate and/or oxidant demand of a water system according to Carey to the method of Shim in view of Schwartzel because the ordinary artisan would have recognized the advantage of Carey’s dosing, which is optimized according to flow and amount of oxidant already present, automated via a PLC to add oxidant to the same water systems (Abstract; Paragraphs [0014, 0015, 0045]), wherein the haloamine oxidant can be generated from hypochlorite (Paragraph [0029]) and used with other oxidants (see Paragraph [0031]), achieving improved biological control (Paragraph [0045]).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Schwartzel as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Boudreaux et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2019/0116787), hereinafter “Boudreaux”.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Shim in view of Schwartzel does not specifically teach a biodispersant.
Boudreaux teaches a biodispersant surfactant (Paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the biodispersant surfactant as taught by Boudreaux to the stabilizer composition of Shim in view of Schwartzel because both references are directed to addition of stabilizing biocide to cooling water systems (see paragraph [0026] of Boudreaux), and because Boudreaux teaches that the disclosed biodispersant surfactant is stable in the presence of bleach and increases efficacy of bleach (Paragraph [0013]), an oxidant also taught by Shim (hypochlorite as disclosed in Paragraph [0043]), rendering the liquid oxidant composition stable for transport and safe to handle (Paragraph [0011]).
Regarding the amount of biodispersant surfactant recited in claim 17, Shim in view of Schwartzel in view of Boudreaux teaches that the surfactant is present in the stabilized surfactant bleach composition at preferably 1-10 mg/L (see Bordeaux: Paragraph [0025]).
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 CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 02 April 2026
Prosecution Insights