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 § 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.
Claim 18 is 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 limitation “and wherein at least one or more sensors are configured to determine an excess of halogen stabilizing compound” appears to be new matter because no support could be found for this limitation in the original disclosure. The specification does not disclose a sensor for “halogen stabilization compound,” or any specific configuration for a sensor to automatically determine the overstabilization from a sensed value like ORP, pH or halogen concentration. The only disclosure that can be found is in [0027], which states, “This goal can be accomplished by monitoring one or more parameters of the water being treated such as the ORP, pH, or halogen content.” Monitoring means observing, or keeping track of, which does not amount to “configured to determine … halogen stabilizing compound.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
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, 2, 4-5, 7-15, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternate, under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over, Boal et al (US 2018/0282882).
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 (anticipated,) 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 “at least one or more sensors are configured to determine 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.
Claim 2: water is contained in a reservoir: the treated water is in a tank (90) – a reservoir. Plus, the added solutions tanks in figures 2 and 3.
Claims 4, 20: Boal teaches at least a halogen and pH sensor [0035]
Claims 5-14: 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.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over, Boal et al (US 2018/0282882) in view of Kim et al (US 2011/0114569.)
Claims 16 and 17 recite an inline mixer, which Boal fails to teach. Kim teaches such inline mixer (vortex generator 19, fig. 1) for the purpose of properly mixing the solution in [0094]. Using inline mixers to assure proper mixing of reagents is also well-known and common sense. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an inline mixer to mix the solutions in figures 2 and 3 of Boal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. They are addressed in the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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