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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over, Boal et al (US 2018/0282882) in view of Ayala (CA 3102966.)
In the preamble, “for treating recycled water contained in a reservoir” is considered as intended use, the reservoir not being part of the claimed structure.
Claims 1 and 18: Boal teaches a system for making a mixed halogen solution as claimed. In [0014], Boal teaches using mixed halogens in any combination or concentration. See the abstract and the figures. Figure 3 is copied herein with some annotations. The system has brine intake through line 60 (first piping), a telemetric sensor 62 immersed in the water in the pipe 60, solution tanks 64/70/76 carrying halogen ions, acid, etc., [0035,0038,] (Note: claims are for an apparatus. Therefore, what is in these tanks is only intended use or the material worked upon.) all connected to the first piping, electro-halogenater 82, storage tank 90 and halogenated water output 92. A second sensor 88 measures the halogen content in the water, and which is used to control halogen concentration as claimed. Boal, Id., also teaches additional sensors not explicitly shown, and use of such sensors are taught as well-known to those skilled in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
582
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding “halogen overstabilization,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Boal teaches controlling halogen concentration, which is stabilization, meaning, less variation. See [0027] on use of halogen stabilizer compounds. Even though not expressly stated, “overstabilization” (increase in concentration with time) of sulfamic acid, being an acid, can be controlled by halogen content or pH, see [0035]-[0036.] Therefore, this is implicit, or, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that sulfamic acid could be controlled using pH as control variable. Note that applicant provides no particular disclosure for the details of how “overstabilization” is controlled, other than a generic statement, Id. About halogen species, see [0014.] Please note that applicant’s disclosure is similar to that of Boal, that is, brine (salt solutions) and other components are electrolyzed together, which results in multiple halogen species.
Regarding the “…indicative of halogen overstabilization,” applicant discloses in [0027], “This goal can be accomplished by monitoring one or more parameters [emphasis by examiner] of the water being treated such as the ORP, pH, or halogen content.” Monitoring a change in the cited parameter would not automatically control for overstabilization. The control disclosed in [0027] appears to be a manual control. Boal teaches in [0038]: “Sensor 88 measures desired properties of the electrolyzed solution, including pH.” This paragraph also teaches use of other sensors not explicitly shown for control aspects well known to those skilled in the art.
For the various sensors recited, see Boal, working examples.
Boal is silent about the sensor package being immersed in the recycled water being treated in the reservoir. Nonetheless, Boal teaches in [0038]:
“Additionally, a control system contained within on-site generation system 82 receives telemetry from sensors 62, 88, and other sensors not explicitly shown and also provides control over pumping mechanisms 66, 72, and 78, in addition to control other aspects of the on-site generation system well known to those skilled in the art.
PNG
media_image2.png
343
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This suggests that the claimed limitation is well-known, that is, having the sensed data from the water being treated for controlling the biocide production system is well-known in the art. This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the primary interest is to keep the process water disinfected. The Canadian patent to Ayala teaches controlling a cooling tower water and sending sensor signals from the cooling tower water to the biocide production system – see fig. 2 copied herein. Ayala also teaches sensors as claimed in page 12, lines 13-15 and the examples.
Claims 5 and 7-14: Boal teaches three tanks with pumps in fig. 3 for the various solutions, inlet pipe 60, outlet pipe 92, and the pumps are being controlled by the controller – see [0038]. The various solutions are taught in [0039], even though they are not patentable limitations in an apparatus claims. Control system – see [0034.]
For claim 15, in addition to the elements claimed in claim 1 and the dependent claims, the added element of varying relative amounts of aqueous solution pumped by varying injection rates: At the least, the pH of the system is controlled in Boal, which requires varying the solution pumped from at least two tanks.
Claims 21 and 22: data transmission through a conduit is implied, or obvious, to transmit data from the sensors to the controller. The oxidizing solution from the electrolyzer 82 is added to the water in the tank 90.
Claims 16 and 17 recite an inline mixer, which Boal fails to teach. Ayala teaches in fig. 1 and page 15, lines 20-22 mixing requirement and inline mixing (i.e., in a pipeline.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/26 have been fully considered but they are moot: new grounds for rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights